Dismissed

Vinoth R v. The Regional Manager

Madras HC10 Jun 2022WP(MD)/6512/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 to direct the respondent bank to pay renovation charges. The Court held that rent or renovation disputes between landlords and tenants are civil matters outside the scope of public law remedies, dismissing the petition without adjudicating on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction to pay renovation charges.

Vinoth R Vs The Regional Manager — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.6512 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.06.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.6512 of 2022

R.Vinoth

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, (Karaikudi Region), BSNL Building, Near New Bus Stand, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶11

2.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Anandur Branch, Anandur, R.S.Mangalam Taluk, Ramanthapuram District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to pay the renovation charge of Rs.3,20,000/- to the petitioner in respect of the petitioner's rented building to the 2^nd respondent Branch situated at Door No.407, (Ground Floor), S.F.No.98/6, Anandur Village, R.S.Mangalam Taluk, Ramanathapuram District by considering the petitioner's application dated 31.12.2019, 16.02.2021, and 06.07.2021.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Veerakumar

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶16

2.The petitioner's building was let out in favour of the respondent/bank some thirty five years ago. The respondent/bank vacated the premises in the year 2020. According to the petitioner, the respondents are liable to pay renovation charges to the tune of Rs.3,20,000/-. He wants this Court to direct the respondents to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/2

¶18

W.P(MD)No.6512 of 2022

¶19

make the said payment. The liability of the respondent/bank to make the said payment is contested by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶20

3.These are matters that do not fall within the scope of public law remedy. The petitioner was the landlord while the respondent/bank was tenant. Any dispute between them with regard to any payment will have to resolved elsewhere. The filing of the writ petition is misconceived and it stands dismissed. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the petitioner. It is always open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in the manner known to law. No costs.

¶21

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/07/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

Ias

¶25

TO:

¶26

1.The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, (Karaikudi Region), BSNL Building, Near New Bus Stand, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶27

2.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Anandur Branch, Anandur, R.S.Mangalam Taluk, Ramanthapuram District.

¶28

W.P(MD)No.6512 of 2022 10.06.2022

¶29

RD(01.07.2022) 2P 3C

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

Vinoth R v. The Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinoth R v. The Regional Manager

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

Centre for the Educare and Research Charitable Trust Vs the Principal Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu

Kesavan.a Vs the Executive Engineer

Edwin.K Vs The Branch Manager

Keerthika T.B Vs the Managing Director

Anandhan.K.S Vs the Managing Director

Karthikeyan T Vs The District Collector