Disposed

Suguna Jayasheeli, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC14 Sept 2021WP/15344/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandatory injunction to prevent the Ootacamund Municipality from evicting the petitioner without due process. The Court noted an existing status-quo order and directed the respondent to follow legal procedural requirements before proceeding against the petitioner. No specific relief was granted in this order.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief granted; respondents directed to follow due procedure.

Suguna Jayasheeli, Vs The Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P. NO. 15344 OF 2015
AND
M.P. NO. 1 OF 2015

¶6

Suguna Jayasheeli

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Commissioner
Ootacamund Municipality
Ootacamund

¶9

 .. Respondent

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing
the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the petitioner's premises bearing Door No.47/69,
L.I.G. Colony, Pinker Post, Ootacamund without due process of law

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Franklin

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the
respondent from interfering with her peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the premises bearing Door No.47/69, L.I.G. Colony,
Pinker Post, Ootacamund without due process of law.

¶14

2. According to the petitioner, the respondent had
leased out the premises in question to her father long back and
he was paying the statutory dues to the respondent without any
default from the date of inception of the tenancy. After his
demise, the petitioner and her family are the in occupation of
the property in question and paying the rent to the respondent
for about 16 years. While so, on 05.02.2015, the respondent
along with his officials came to the premises and disconnected
water service connection. Again on 08.05.2015, the officials of
the respondent came to the premises in question and threatened

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

to vacate the petitioner. When it was refused, the officials of
the respondent gave an ultimatum that the petitioner should
vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises
before 31.05.2015. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent in
forcibly attempting to evict the petitioner without following
the due process of law, this writ petition is filed.

¶17

3. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that on 27.05.2015, this
Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo and the order
of status-quo is in force till date. The petitioner is residing
in the premises in question as on date by virtue of the order of
status-quo granted by this Court without any interference by the
respondent or his officials. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the possession of the petitioner is
lawful and it has to be protected. Therefore, he prayed this
Court to issue appropriate direction to the respondent not to
dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law.

¶18

4. On the above contention of the counsel for the
petitioner, this Court heard the learned counsel for the
respondent and perused the materials placed.

¶19

5. It is seen from the records that when this writ
petition was taken up for hearing on 27.05.2015, this Court,
taking note of the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner is attempted to be evicted by the respondent
from the premises in question, forcibly, had directed the
parties to maintain status-quo. Pursuant to the order of
status-quo granted on 27.05.2015, it is stated that the
petitioner, along with her family members, are in possession of
the premises in question without any interference by the
officials of the respondent. Taking note of the above facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the
respondent shall proceed further against the petitioner only by
following the due procedures contemplated under law.

¶20

6. With the above observation, this Writ Petition stands
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

dhk/rsh

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

To

¶28

The Commissioner
Ootacamund Municipality
Ootacamund

¶29

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.47221

¶30

WP No. 15344 of 2015

¶31

RSV(CO)
RLP(26/10/2021)

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Suguna Jayasheeli, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suguna Jayasheeli, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Summit Digital Infrastructure Vs The District Collector

M/s. Greenway Clothing India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Managing Director

Chandrasekaran, Vs The Regional Director

M/s.Thiruvannamalai Poths Vs The Senior Branch Manager

Reena, Vs The District Manager

Mohamad Sabeer Ahamed, Vs The District Collector