Dismissed

S.Selvakumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC19 Oct 2022WP/23442/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three writ petitions challenging an eviction notice. The Court held that since the license period under the 2001 agreement expired in 2004 without renewal, the petitioners had no legal right to stay, and a show-cause notice was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions failed and are dismissed. The eviction notice and connected miscellaneous petitions stand upheld.

S.Selvakumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.Nos.23442, 23500 & 23557 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

W.P.Nos.23442, 23500 & 23557 of 2014 and

¶7

M.P.Nos.1, 1 & 1 of 2014

¶8

S.Selvakumar ..Petitioner in W.P.No.23442/2014

¶9

P.R.Velusamy ..Petitioner in W.P.No.23500/2014

¶10

P.R.Velusamy ..Petitioner in W.P.No.23557/2014

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Secretary, Adi Dravidar Welfare and Tribal Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶13

2.The Chairman, TAHDCO, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶14

3.The Managing Director, TAHDCO, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.Nos.23442, 23500 & 23557 of 2014

¶18

4.The District Manager/ Deputy Collector, TAHDCO,

¶19

Govt. Boys' Hostel Compound, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶20

5.The Commissioner, Corporation of Coimbatore, Coimbatore – 641 001.

¶21

6.The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. ..Respondents in all W.P.s

¶22

Common Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for entire records pertaining to the Na.Ka.No.A1/389/1999 dated 14.08.2014 passed by the 4^th respondent and quash the same.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.E.D.Sethupathi

¶24

For Respondents : Mrs.C.Sangamithirai

¶25

Special Government Pleader for RR1 to 4 & 6 Mr.K.Magesh for R5

¶26

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶27

Challenge in these writ petitions is to the eviction notice issued by

¶28

the 4^th respondent requiring the petitioners to vacate and hand over

¶29

possession of the shops in the commercial complex owned by the 4^th respondent.

¶30

2/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.Nos.23442, 23500 & 23557 of 2014

¶33

2. The petitioners were conferred with the license for running their business establishments in the shops constructed by the 4^th respondent for a period of 11 months under the agreement dated 21^st September 2001. The said agreement provides that the license shall be for a period of 1 year renewable for two 1 year terms. Therefore, the agreement had expired even in the year 2004 and there has been no further renewal. It is in these circumstances, the 3^rd respondent Corporation had required the petitioners to vacate and deliver vacant possession to enable the Corporation to re-auction the shops.

¶34

3. Mr.D.Sethupathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶35

would contend that the petitioners will be entitled to a show cause notice since they have been accused of sub-letting the premises.

¶36

4. I am unable to sustain the said argument of the learned counsel,

¶37

inasmuch as the period of lease itself is over and the petitioners have no legal right to continue in the premises. After all the Corporation is the owner of the property and it has the right to use the property to its best

¶38

3/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.Nos.23442, 23500 & 23557 of 2014

¶41

advantage and the petitioners cannot claim a permanent tenancy. De hors the claim of subletting, once the license period is over, the petitioners are

¶42

bound to vacate and hand over possession.

¶43

5. I therefore see no merit in the writ petitions. The writ petitions

¶44

fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶45

19.10.2022

¶46

dsa Index : No Internet : Yes Speaking order

¶47

4/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.Nos.23442, 23500 & 23557 of 2014

¶50

¶51

1.The Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Adi Dravidar Welfare and Tribal Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶52

2.The Chairman, TAHDCO, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶53

3.The Managing Director, TAHDCO, No.31, Cenotaph Road, 2^nd Lane, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶54

4.The District Manager/ Deputy Collector, TAHDCO,

¶55

Govt. Boys' Hostel Compound, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶56

5.The Commissioner, Corporation of Coimbatore, Coimbatore – 641 001.

¶57

6.The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶58

5/6

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.Nos.23442, 23500 & 23557 of 2014

¶61

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶62

dsa

¶63

W.P.Nos.23442, 23500 & 23557 of 2014

¶64

19.10.2022

¶65

6/6

¶66

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

S.Selvakumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Selvakumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

Arulmigu Kanniamman Koil Vs Chennai City Municipal

T.John Sugumar Vs The District Collector

D.Packrisamy Vs The District Collector

R.Santhi Vs The District Collector

A.Manikkaraj Vs The State of Tamilnadu

A.K.Parthasarathy Vs Shriram Chits Tamilnadu