Disposed

V.Balasubramanian Vadamalai v. the District Collector

Madras HC4 Mar 2024WP/3148/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the locking and sealing of a property converted into a hostel by the Tahsildar under the Public Buildings Licensing Act. The court noted pending suit proceedings regarding possession; accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of without substantive adjudication on merits, leaving the parties to work out rights.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed without adjudication on merits; parties left to work out respective rights regarding the property.

V.Balasubramanian Vadamalai Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No. 3148 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P. No. 3148 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P. No. 3415 of 2024

¶8

V.Balasubramanian Vadamalai Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

The District Collector, Chengalpet District, Chengalpet.

¶11

The Tahsildar Thiruporur Circle Chengalpet District.

¶12

Arunprasad Ravindranath rep. By his Power Agent Mr.C.Ravindranath ... Respondents

¶13

(R3 impleaded vide order of this Court dated 04.03.2024 in W.M.P.No.6510 of 2024 in W.P.No.3148 of 2024)

¶14

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, consequently directing the Second Respondent to remove the lock and seal of the premises situated at No.10, Navalur Village, Vijayaganapathy Nagar 3^rd Street, Kelambakkam Kuru vattam, Thiruporur Circle, Chengalpet District.

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

W.P. No. 3148 of 2024

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. A.Vivekanandhan For Respondents : Mr. S.J.Mohamed Sathik, (for R1 and R2) Government Advocate Mr. K.Sakthivel (for R3)

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard Mr. A.Vivekanandhan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.J.Mohamed Sathik, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the First and Second Respondents and Mr. K.Sakthivel, Learned Counsel for the Third Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶21

It is the case of the Petitioner that the premises situate at Plot Nos. 9 & 34, 3^rd Street, Vijayaganapthy Nagar, Navalur, Chennai – 600103 (hereinafter referred to as 'the property' for short) belongs to the Third Respondent, who had granted it on lease by agreement dated 01.07.2015 for a period of 120 months as ladies hostel in the name and style of 'Taurima Pink Hostel' utilizing 24 rooms there. However, the Third Respondent did not co-operate with the Petitioner for obtaining the requisite licence under the Tamil Nadu Hostels and Homes for Women and Children (Regulation) Act,2014, and in those

¶22

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

¶23

2/6

¶24

W.P. No. 3148 of 2024

¶25

circumstances, the Petitioner had converted the property into a mens' hostel. While the matter stood as narrated supra, the Second Respondent had affixed Notice on 18.01.2024 in the property informing that no hostel could be conducted there and had locked and sealed it, which is assailed in this Writ Petition.

¶26

It is explained by Learned Government Advocate appearing for the First and Second Respondents that a 'hostel' is a 'public building' within the meaning of Section 2(8)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TNPBL Act' for short) for which requisite licence under Section 3 of the TNPBL Act has to be obtained, which the Petitioner does not possess and in its absence, the Second Respondent as the competent authority under Section 15 of the TNPBL Act had locked and sealed the premises to prohibit its use as a public building.

¶27

It is brought to notice that the Third Respondent has already filed a suit in O.S. No. 277 of 2020 before the District Court, Chengalpattu against the Petitioner for recovery of possession of the property along with rental arrears, which is now pending.

¶28

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

¶29

3/6

¶30

W.P. No. 3148 of 2024

¶31

¶32

It is informed that in furtherance to the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by this Court, the inmates in the property have removed all their belongings and that the Petitioner is ready to hand over vacant possession of the property without any hostel to the Third Respondent.

¶33

In view of the subsequent events, nothing remains for further consideration in this Writ Petition, and it is left open to the Petitioner and the Third Respondent to work out their respective right against each other regarding the property in accordance with law.

¶34

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid observations. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶35

04.03.2024

¶36

Index: Yes/No NCC: Yes/No

¶37

Note: Issue order copy by 05.06.2024.

¶38

gsa

¶39

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

¶40

4/6

¶41

W.P. No. 3148 of 2024

¶42

¶43

The District Collector, Chengalpet District, Chengalpet.

¶44

The Tahsildar Thiruporur Circle Chengalpet District.

¶45

Copy to

¶46

Arunprasad Ravindranath No.1253 Tioga Dr. Irving TX USA 75063 rep. By his Power Agent C.Ravindranath 33, Narayanaswamy Main Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119.

¶47

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

¶48

5/6

¶49

W.P. No. 3148 of 2024

¶50

P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶51

gsa

¶52

W.P. No. 3148 of 2024

¶53

04.03.2024

¶54

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

¶55

6/6

V.Balasubramanian Vadamalai v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Balasubramanian Vadamalai 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

A.Jothimani Vs the Joint Commissioner

A.v.Subramanian Vs the Union of India

N.Krishnaveni Vs the Under Secretary to Govt. of India

R.Tamilselvi Vs The Commissioner

Arulprakasam Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

K.Dinakaramohan Vs a.P.Murugesan and another