Disposed

S.Swaminathan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC12 Mar 2024WP/3176/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order to vacate a shop. The petitioner undertook to vacate upon lease expiry. The court clarified consequences of non-compliance and linked eligibility for preferential allotment to voluntary eviction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with observations clarifying the consequences of failing to vacate by 31.03.2024 and the conditions for preferential allotment.

S.Swaminathan Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No. 3176 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P. No. 3176 of 2024 and W.M.P. No. 3443 of 2024

S.Swaminathan

… Petitioner

-vs-

The Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, West Zone, Coimbatore – 641035.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, West Zone, Coimbatore – 641035. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the Second Respondent in Na. Ka. No. 1877/2022/A1 dated 29.01.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the Second Respondent to offer alternative accommodation to the Petitioner under the same lease terms and consequently provide preferential right and priority in allotment of shops in the new commercial building complex proposed to be constructed in Arokiasamy Road, West Zone, Coimbatore Corporation.

¶13

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

¶14

1/5

¶15

W.P. No. 3176 of 2024

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. L.P.Maurya For Respondents : Mr. N.Umapathy

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard Mr. L.P.Maurya, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and

¶19

Mr. N.Umapathy, Learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the

¶20

materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶21

The Petitioner is in occupation of Shop No. 2, Asst No. 2420183, Arokiasamy Road, West Ward – 071, West Zone, Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Shop' for short), belonging to the Respondents. According to the Petitioner, the current lease period of the shop is from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2024, but the Second Respondent by Proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 1877/ 2022/A1 dated 29.01.2024 called upon the Petitioner to immediately vacate from the premises on account of its dilapidated condition and that it was proposed to demolish and re-construct the building where the shop is located, which is assailed in this Writ Petition.

¶22

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

¶23

2/5

¶24

W.P. No. 3176 of 2024

¶25

¶26

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner undertakes on behalf of the Petitioner that he would vacate from the shop on 31.03.2024 when the lease period automatically lapses and his continuance in the property would be at his own risk. He has also made an endorsement to that effect in the court record.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid submission made, it is made clear that if the Petitioner fails to vacate from the shop by 31.03.2024, the Respondents are not precluded from taking necessary action for evicting him in accordance with Rule 319 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, which reads as follows:-

¶28

319. Occupation of a municipal land or building or of a land or building vested in the municipality without a licence or lease.— If the occupation of a municipal land or building or of a land or building vested in the municipality is without a licence or lease or continues beyond the period of the said licence or lease, the occupant shall be liable to be evicted under provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1976).

¶29

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

¶30

3/5

¶31

W.P. No. 3176 of 2024

¶32

It is needless to add here that if the Petitioner voluntarily vacates from the

¶33

premises by the said date and satisfies the requirement of Rule 316 of the Rules, his claim for preferential allotment in the newly constructed shop shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶34

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

¶35

12.03.2024

¶36

Index: Yes/No NCC: Yes/No

¶37

Note: Issue order copy by 05.06.2024.

¶38

¶39

¶40

The Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, West Zone, Coimbatore – 641035.

¶41

The Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, West Zone, Coimbatore – 641035.

¶42

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

¶43

4/5

¶44

W.P. No. 3176 of 2024

¶45

P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶46

¶47

W.P. No. 3176 of 2024

¶48

12.03.2024

¶49

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

¶50

5/5

S.Swaminathan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Swaminathan 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

M.K.Dass, President, Vs The Assistant Director

G.Parivallal, President Vs The Assistant Director

A.G.Sivasakthivel, President Vs The Assistant Director

R.Lakshmi Narayanan Vs The Commissioner

P.P.Thangavel Vs the District Collector

J.Villayutham, Vs The Deputy Registrar