Dismissed

M/s.Omvishkar Exports v. The District Collector

Madras HC23 Aug 2023WP/2280/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s.Omvishkar Exports challenging demand notices issued by the Tahsildar for recovery of arrears of rent. The Court held the notices were consequential proceedings based on the original lease default and no infirmity existed, directing the petitioner to approach the landlord for reconciliation.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed. No costs.

M/s.Omvishkar Exports Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.2280 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.2280 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.2353 and 2355 of 2023

¶8

M/s.Omvishkar Exports

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The District Collector, Chennai District.

¶12

2.The Tahsildar, Pursaiswakkam Taluk, Chennai.

¶13

3.The Chennai Fishing Harbour Management Committee, Chennai Port Trust, Old Administrative Building,

¶14

4^th Floor, No.1, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶16

to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order dated 29.09.2022 in Letter No.FHMC3/0131/2008/E of the 3^rd respondent

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.2280 of 2023

¶20

and the Demand Notice dated 22.12.2022 in Letter No.A3/2870/2022 and

¶21

demand notice-2 dated 06.01.2023 in Na.Ka.No.A3/054/2023 of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Palanimuthu For R1 & R2 : Mr.T.Arunkumar, Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.V.Vijaya Baskar

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The Writ Petition has been instituted challenging the Demand Notices dated 22.12.2022 and 06.01.2023 issued by the Tahsildar.

¶25

It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was the tenant and the

¶26

subject property belonging to the 3^rd respondent / the Chennai Fishing Harbour Management Committee. The petitioner had committed default in payment of rent and action was initiated by the 3^rd respondent based on the lease conditions and an order was passed. The 3^rd respondent requested the District Collector to recover the arrears of rent by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The District Collector accordingly directed the

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.2280 of 2023

¶30

jurisdictional Tahsildar to issue demand notice and to recover the arrears of rent due to the 3^rd respondent from the writ petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed by the District Collector, Chennai, the Tahsildar issued the impugned demand notice to recover the arrears of rent from the petitioner.

¶31

The said demand notice issued by the Tahsidlar is only consequential proceedings for the actions instituted based on the default in payment of rent committed by the writ petitioner against the 3^rd respondent. As far as the Tahsildar is concerned, he is the competent authority under the Revenue Recovery Act and there is no cause exist for the petitioner against the demand notice. The original order passed by the 3^rd respondent would alone provide cause for challenge and the absence of challenging the said order declares that the petitioner has defaulted in payment of rent and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to pay the arrears of rent. However, in the present case, the demand notices issued by the Tahsildar alone are under challenge.

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.2280 of 2023

¶35

The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

¶36

made a submission that pursuant to the interim order passed in the present Writ Petition a sum of of Rs.20,00,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner. Some amount is to be adjusted since the petitioner has already paid some amount. In respect of the arrears of rent and its calculation, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the 3^rd respondent for the purpose of reconciling the accounts and to take a final decision. As far as the Tahsildar and the District Collector is concerned, based on the orders passed by the 3^rd respondent, they have invoked the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the purpose of recovery of arrears of rent due to the 3^rd respondent.

¶37

Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the demand notices issued

¶38

by the Tahsildar on the instructions of the District Collector. The petitioner shall approach the 3^rd respondent for the purpose of settling the arrears of rent based on the original order passed against the petitioner. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had already been evicted from the subject premises.

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.2280 of 2023

¶42

Accordingly, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the

¶43

demand notices and consequently, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶44

23.08.2023

¶45

skr Index : Yes Speaking order To

¶46

1.The District Collector, Chennai District. 2.The Tahsildar, Pursaiswakkam Taluk, Chennai.

¶47

3.The Chennai Fishing Harbour Management Committee, Chennai Port Trust, Old Administrative Building, 4^th Floor, No.1, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶48

Page 5 of 6

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.2280 of 2023

¶51

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶52

skr

¶53

W.P.No.2280 of 2023

¶54

23.08.2023

¶55

Page 6 of 6

¶56

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

M/s.Omvishkar Exports v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Omvishkar Exports v. The District Collector

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

R.Govindasamy Vs The commissioner, Land Administration

V.Gunasekaran Vs Competent authority and District Revenue Officer

Dalmia cement (Bharat) Limited Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P.Thangamani Vs The District Collector

S.Seenivasa Rao Vs The District Collector

R.Sathyanarayanan, Vs The State of Tamilnadu