Disposed

M.Sundaram v. the Commissioner

Madras HC8 Aug 2024WP/22503/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition concerning a shop leased from the HR & CE Department. The Court directed the respondents to issue a revised rent demand after deducting the lockdown period and granted the petitioner three months to vacate, while allowing liberty to participate in the future auction of the new shops.

What did the court decide?

Direction to issue revised rent demand deducting lockdown period; liberty to participate in auction.

M.Sundaram Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 08.08.2024

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.22503 of 2024

¶6

M.Sundaram ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. The Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

¶8

The Joint Commissioner, Officer of the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Salem District, Tamil Nadu-001.

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Arulmigu Vennankodi Muniyappa Swamy Temple, Omalur Main Road, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem District, Tamil Nadu-636 302.

¶10

.... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners representation dated 15.07.2024 regarding the

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

extension of the time frame of 3 days mentioned in the Emergency Note of Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Department Arulmigu Vennenkodi Muniyappa Swamy Temple and to allot the shop towards the petitioner where the construction of the new shops has been completed according to their plan and protect the livelihood of the petitioner's family.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sivakumar Sivaaji For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, GA (HR & CE)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners representation dated 15.07.2024 regarding the extension of the time frame of 3 days mentioned in the Emergency Note of Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Department Arulmigu Vennenkodi Muniyappa Swamy Temple and to allot the shop towards the petitioner where the construction of the new shops has been completed according to their plan and protect the livelihood of the petitioner's family.

¶18

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner participated in the auction conducted by the HR & CE Department and took a shop in auction and run by paying the rent at Rs.18,000/- per month. In such circumstances,

¶19

due to covid-19 the shop was closed and he is paying the rent without any

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

default till date. Subsequently, the petitioner received an emergency note stating to remove the temporary shops situated at both right and left side of the Arulmigu Vennankodi Muniyappa Swamy Temple for the purpose of setting up a new shops. The petitioner made a representation on 15.07.2024 to the respondents to extend the time to vacate the shop and also to allot the shop towards him. They have not taken any action. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have demanded arrears amount which is relates to Covid period and also to vacate the shop. This Court may issue a direction to the respondent to deduct the amount in the lockdown period and issue a fresh demand to the petitioner and permit him to continue in the temporary shed for a period of three months. After a period of three months, the petitioner is ready to vacate the premises and permit him to participate the auction conducted by the respondents with regard to the newly constructed shopping complex.

¶24

The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the total arrears of rent is Rs.1,37,150/- from April 2019 to till date. The petitioner

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

is irregular in paying the rent.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.

¶29

Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, this Court directs

¶30

the 3^rd respondent to issue a revised demand of rent to the petitioner after deducting the rent for the lockdown period within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such demand, the petitioner is directed to pay the entire arrears within a period of four weeks thereafter. Further the petitioner is directed to handover the property after three months. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to participate in the auction to be conducted.

¶31

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No

costs.

08.08.2024

rli

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

¶36

¶37

¶38

The Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

¶39

The Joint Commissioner, Officer of the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Salem District, Tamil Nadu-001.

¶40

The Assistant Commissioner,

¶41

Office of the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Arulmigu Vennankodi Muniyappa Swamy Temple, Omalur Main Road, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem District, Tamil Nadu-636 302.

¶42

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

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

rli

W.P.No.22503 of 2024

08.08.2024

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

¶49

M.Sundaram v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sundaram 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

Prabhu Original Name P.Venkatachalam Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

D.Parvathy Vs The Tamilnadu Slum Cleanrance

K.Srinivasan Vs The Managing Director

Sesu Pichiah Vs Joint Director (Regional)

V.Jayakumar, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

V.S.Kumar Vs the Superintending Engineer