Disposed

Arulmigu Thiruvalleeswarar v. The Commissioner

Madras HC23 Dec 2022WP/18094/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions filed by a temple seeking mandamus to direct municipal authorities to act against a tenant who reconstructed the temple building. The Court held that since the temple had already initiated eviction proceedings under Section 78 of the H.R.&C.E. Act, no further direction to the authorities was required.

What did the court decide?

The Court found no direction was required to the 1st and 2nd Respondents and disposed of all writ petitions without costs.

Arulmigu Thiruvalleeswarar Vs The Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.Nos.18094, 18095, 18096, 18097, 18098, 18214,18215 and 22713 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.15863, 15864, 15865, 15961, 15962 and 19408 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.Nos.18094, 18095, 18096, 18097, 18098,

¶7

18214,18215 and 22713 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.15863, 15864, 15865, 15961, 15962 and 19408 of 2016

¶8

W.P.No.18094 of 2016

¶9

Arulmigu Thiruvalleeswarar Temple Rep by its Executive Officer Padi,

Chennai 600050

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai Park Town,

¶14

Chennai 600003.

¶15

The Assistant Commissioner Corporation of Chennai-Zone VII M.T.H.Road, Ambattur,

¶16

Chennai 600053

¶17

Lakshmi Ammal

¶18

1/5

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.Nos.18094, 18095, 18096, 18097, 18098, 18214,18215 and 22713 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.15863, 15864, 15865, 15961, 15962 and 19408 of 2016

¶21

S. Murali

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to take suitable action in respect of the illegal construction being made by the 3rd Respondent on land bearing Door No.64, Appar Street, Thiruvalleeswarar Nagar, Padi, Chennai 600050.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.A.K. Sriram for M/s.A.S. Kailasam and Associates

¶25

For Respondents : Mrs.P.T. Ramadevi [for R1 to R2] No appearance [for R3] Mr. G. Saravanakumar [for R4]

¶26

COMMON ORDER

¶27

These writ petitions have been filed to to issue Writ of Mandamus,

¶28

directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to take suitable action in respect of the illegal construction being made by the 3rd Respondent on land bearing Door No.64, Appar Street, Thiruvalleeswarar Nagar, Padi, Chennai 600050.

¶29

It is the only grievance of the Petitioner that the 3rd Respondent

¶30

being a tenant, demolished the construction and building of the temple and 2/5

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.Nos.18094, 18095, 18096, 18097, 18098, 18214,18215 and 22713 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.15863, 15864, 15865, 15961, 15962 and 19408 of 2016

¶33

reconstructed without obtaining prior permission from the Corporation. Therefore, sought action against them for violating the building rules.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.

¶35

The affidavit filed by the Petitioner would indicate that the Temple has already initiated proceedings under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act for eviction of the tenants. That apart they have also started the legal action and complaint also given to the police. It is stated that more than 5 suits are filed by the tenants against the temple which are pending before the District Munsif Court, Ambattur in O.S.Nos.246/2015, 230/1018, 10/2019, 373/2019 and 216/2021, which is not disputed by both sides.

¶36

Apart from Civil Suits, prceedings under Section 78 of the H.R. & C.E. Act also initiated by the Temple, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board to take appropriate action on the basis of the order that may be passed under Section 78 of the H.R.&C.E.Act for eviction of the 3/5

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.Nos.18094, 18095, 18096, 18097, 18098, 18214,18215 and 22713 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.15863, 15864, 15865, 15961, 15962 and 19408 of 2016

¶39

tenancy. As separate proceedings under Section 78 of the Act is also initiated

¶40

as per the affidavit, this Court is of the view that no direction is required to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The Respondents 1 and 2 may proceed to evict

¶41

the tenants from the premises pursuant to the orders if any, passed under Section 78 of the H.R.&C.E. Act.

¶42

With the above direction, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No

¶43

costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

23.12.2022

ggs

Copy to:

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai Park Town, Chennai 600003.

¶48

The Assistant Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai-Zone VII M.T.H.Road, Ambattur, Chennai 600053

¶49

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶50

ggs

¶51

4/5

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

W.P.Nos.18094, 18095, 18096, 18097, 18098, 18214,18215 and 22713 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.15863, 15864, 15865, 15961, 15962 and 19408 of 2016

¶54

W.P.Nos.18094, 18095, 18096, 18097, 18098, 18214,18215 and 22713 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.15863, 15864, 15865, 15961, 15962, and 19408 of 2016

¶55

23.12.2022

¶56

5/5

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arulmigu Thiruvalleeswarar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arulmigu Thiruvalleeswarar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Krishnasamy, Vs The District Collector

M/S.Sima Publicities Vs the Commissioner

Big Print, Vs The Commissioner

V.Sasiikumar Vs The Transport commissioner

Andimadam Village Panchayat Vs The Principal Secretary to

Siddarth Galada, Vs The Commissioner