Dismissed

Managing Director, v. the Chairman

Madras HC2 Sept 2024WP/33886/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A fishing harbour lessee sought a mandamus barring collection of enhanced rent until promised amenities were provided. Counsel withdrew from merits and requested liberty to approach a civil court or the authorities. The writ petition was dismissed with that liberty; connected petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioner to seek remedy before competent civil court or respondents in accordance with law.

Managing Director, Vs the Chairman — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.33886 of 2002

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.09.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.33886 of 2002 and

¶7

W.P.M.P.No.50094 of 2002

¶8

Seafarer Fisheries (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, No.21 & 22, Fishing Harbour Complex, Royapuram, Chennai – 600 019. ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Chennai Fishing Harbour Management Committee, Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents herein from in anyway collecting the enhanced rent from the petitioner until the respondent provide all the basic amenities to the petitioner unit as promised by them.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Sundararajan For Respondents : Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi *****

¶15

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

Page No.1 of 4

W.P.No.33886 of 2002

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondents herein from in anyway collecting the enhanced rent from the petitioner until the respondent provide all the basic amenities to the petitioner unit as promised by them.

¶20

2. The case of the petitioner is that, on 12.11.1992, the petitioner was allotted with 1000 sq.ft. by the 1 st respondent and the rent was fixed at Rs.65/- p.a. per sq.m. for a lease period of 10 years, however, during the year 1995, the rent was enhanced to Rs.80/- sq.m. At that time, the petitioner did not protest for the enhancement with the hope that the respondents would provide the basic amenities as promised by them. However, there was no improvement in providing the basic amenities except laying of road. Whileso, the petitioner received a notice from the respondents claiming the enhanced rent, which was hiked to 100% i.e., Rs.160/- p.a. per sq.m. and the petitioner paid the rent till April 2002 at Rs.10,080/- p.m. and continued to pay the same. However, the 2 nd respondent directed the petitioner to pay the revised rate of Rs.15,120/per month and also the additional security deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 4

¶21

W.P.No.33886 of 2002

¶22

3. Though very many grounds have been raised in this writ petition, when the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, without going into the merits of the case, this court may grant liberty to the petitioner to workout the remedy either before the competent civil court or before the respondents in the manner know to law.

¶23

4. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed with the

¶24

above liberty. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

03.09.2024

¶26

(2/2)

¶27

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No sp

¶28

¶29

1.The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai.

¶30

2.The Chennai Fishing Harbour, Management Committee, Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013.

¶31

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

Page No.3 of 4

W.P.No.33886 of 2002

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

W.P.No.33886 of 2002

¶37

03.09.2024 (2/2)

¶38

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

¶39

Page No.4 of 4

Managing Director, v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Director, v. the Chairman

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

P.Velu Vs The superintending Engineer

V.Tamizhanban Vs Irai Anbu IAS

P.Pichaikannu Vs the Chairman

Mohan Vs The Chairman

P.Natarajan Vs Csb Bank Ltd.

R.Muthusamy Vs The Commissioner