Disposed

C.Kolaindaivelu, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC12 Jan 2023WP/11109/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a 2014 eviction notice under Section 258 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, arguing they became new owners and the building is in good condition. The High Court disposed of the petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of on the direction that the Corporation could inspect the building and issue a fresh notice if needed.

C.Kolaindaivelu, Vs The Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP.No.11109 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.11109 of 2016 &

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.9651 & 9652 of 2016

¶8

C.Kolaindaivelu

¶9

Srichand

¶10

M.G.Muraheri Rao

¶11

Ganapathraj

¶12

P.Sunil

¶13

Bharat Prohit

¶14

... Petitioners

¶15

¶16

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶17

J.Harikumar

¶18

The Regional Deputy Commissioner, [North Corporation of Chennai], Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under the Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondents 1 and 3 in issuing notice under section 258 of Chennai City Municipal

¶21

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

WP.No.11109 of 2016

¶23

Corporation Act 1919 dated 24.11.2014 and quash the same.

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Senthil Nathan For Respondents : Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi Standing Counsel for R1 & R3 Not ready notice for R2

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 24.11.2014 issued to the under section 258 of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act.

¶27

The impugned notice has been issued for eviction of the tenant

¶28

from the building which require immediate renovation. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the very notice has been issued at the instance of the erstwhile owner as there is landlord tenant dispute between them. According to him, the entire property has been purchased by the petitioners and the petitioners are the absolute owner of the premises and the building is in good condition. Hence, submitted that the notice dated 24.11.2014 has become infructuous.

¶29

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

WP.No.11109 of 2016

¶31

The notice has been issued on 24.11.2014 and the petitioners have

¶32

now become owners of the property and it is almost 8 years over since the notice has been sent. Hence, it is open to the Corporation to inspect the building and issue fresh notice if the building require immediate renovation after giving opportunity to the petitioner and no action shall be taken on the basis of the notice issued on 24.11.2014.

¶33

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶34

Consequently, connection miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶35

12.01.2023

¶36

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No vrc

¶37

To,

¶38

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶39

The Regional Deputy Commissioner, [North Corporation of Chennai], Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶40

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

WP.No.11109 of 2016

¶42

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶43

vrc

¶44

WP.No.11109 of 2016

¶45

12.01.2023

¶46

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.Kolaindaivelu, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Kolaindaivelu, 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

S.Anandakumar Vs The Regional Transport officer

Kushma Kumari Alias Yamini Vs The Commissioner

V.Rajasekar Vs The District Collector

Muthulingam Vs The District Collector

P.Murugesan Vs The Director

S.Nirmala Vs The Commissioner