Disposed

Sakthivel. M v. The Ottanchadram Municipality

Madras HC1 Aug 2024WP(MD)/8925/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench judgment disposed of two writ petitions challenging a municipal notice fixing a 28-day time limit to vacate premises. The Court granted a one-month extension (until 31 August 2024) and placed the eviction notice on hold until that date. Connected petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Vacation of premises extended till 31.08.2024; Impugned notice put on hold till that date.

Sakthivel. M Vs The Ottanchadram Municipality — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)Nos.8925 & 8926 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.08.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)Nos.8925 & 8926 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8117, 8118, 8124 & 8125 of 2024

¶8

M.Sakthivel ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.8925 of 2024 A.Chellapandi ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.8926 of 2024

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Oddanchatram Municipality, Rep. Through its Commissioner, Dindigul.

¶11

2.P.Sakthivel

¶12

3.W.Johnson Christopher ... Respondents in all W.Ps.

¶13

(R3 is impleaded vide Court order dated 01.08.2024 made in W.M.P.(MD)Nos. 8686 & 8859 of 2024)

¶14

COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned notice dated 30.01.2024 and the consequential order dated 20.02.2024 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same insofar as it fixes a time limit of 28 days to vacate the premises and refuses to extend the time to vacate the premises as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and further, to direct the 1^st respondent to grant the writ petitioners a time of 6 months to vacate the premises.

¶15

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

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P(MD)Nos.8925 & 8926 of 2024

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For R1 : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For R2 : Dispensed with For R3 : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah (in both W.Ps.)

¶19

COMMON ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶21

2.The municipality has issued notice to lock and seal the petition

¶22

mentioned premises, which are under the occupation of the tenants. They only seek some more time to vacate the premises. The writ petitioners are given time till 31.08.2024 for vacating the petition mentioned premises. The impugned notice shall be put on hold till then. It can be enforced thereafter.

¶23

3.These Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

01.08.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶25

Yuva

¶26

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

¶27

2/3

¶28

W.P(MD)Nos.8925 & 8926 of 2024

¶29

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J

¶30

Yuva

¶31

W.P(MD)Nos.8925 & 8926 of 2024

¶32

01.08.2024 (2/2)

¶33

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

¶34

3/3

Sakthivel. M v. The Ottanchadram Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakthivel. M v. The Ottanchadram Municipality

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

N.Mahamani Vs The District Collector

Srinivasa Raghavan. S Vs M/s. Guna Hp Gas Gramin Vitrak

Tirunelveli Cms Evangelical Church Vs The District Registrar (Administration)

Arun Chakkaravarthi Vs The District Collector

Vijayakumar S Vs The District Collector

Soundarapandian .T.S.M.M Vs The Sub Registrar