Allowed¶50

V.Balaji v. The Chennai Port Trust and 2 others

Madras HC20 Jan 2025A/2417/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Removal of seal and block from leased/licensed port premises; Chennai Port Trust; Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971, Sections 4 and 5; Estate Officer eviction order dated 21.09.2022 set aside in CMA No.21 of 2022 by order dated 26.11.2024; eviction effected 30.01.2024 per respondents; Mortgage Deed dated 14.07.2014; mortgage redemption suit CS No.645 of 2017 claiming Rs.90,10,510/- with interest; electricity dues Rs.50,74,724/-; W.A. No.1765 of 2013; O.S. No.6109 of 2013 partly decreed 31.07.2019; S.A. No.942 of 2022 pending; ice plant ammonia leakage hazard; Plot No.64 Fishing Harbour Complex, Royapuram, Chennai.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to remove the seal and blocks from the entrances of the premises, enabling the applicant to use the petition premises; no costs. ¶50

V.Balaji Vs The Chennai Port Trust and 2 others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A NO. 2417 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: -01-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶6

A NO. 2417 of 2024

¶7

¶8

CS NO. 645 of 2017

¶9

V.Balaji

¶10

Propr.Sri Jai Ganesh Marine Unit Plot No.64, Fishing Harbour Complex, Royapuram, Chennai-600 013.

¶11

Applicant(s)

¶12

¶13

The Chennai Port Trust and 2 others Rep.by Chairman , Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. and 2 Others

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

For Applicant(s): Mr.K.V.Sundararajan For Respondent(s): Mr.Hajamohideen Gisthi

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This application has been filed by the applicant seeking to direct the Respondents, to remove

¶18

the seal and Blocks from the entrances in the Premises, enabling the applicant to use the Petition Premises.

¶19

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

¶20

2.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was

¶21

allotted a land at Plot No.64 in the premises of the 1^st respondent fixing the rental/licence fee amount at Rs.65 p.a. per Sq.mtr. After getting permission, the applicant had put up construction and set up Ice Plant by spending huge amount of Rs.50 lacs in the said plot. The terms of the Licence/Lease period was for 10 years. During 2001, the rent/Licence fee was enhanced from Rs.65/- p.a. per sq.mtr. to Rs.80/- p.a. per sq.mtr and subsequently, it has been enhanced to Rs.120/- seeking for additional security deposit.

¶22

3.It has been further submitted that against the above enhancement of the

¶23

rent/Licence fee, the suit in O.S. No.6109 of 2013 filed by the applicant was partly decreed in favour of the applicant by Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2019 by granting permanent injunction, not to disturb the applicant except by way of following due process of law and A.S. No.42 of 2012 filed by the respondents was dismissed confirming the Judgment of the Trial Court and thereafter, they have filed S.A. No.942 of 2022 before this Court which is now pending.

¶24

The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that as

¶25

directed by this Court in WA. No.1765 of 2013 filed by the applicant due to arbitrary

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis charging of electricity, Service Charge etc., the applicant has created a Mortgage Deed

¶27

and filed the present suit for discharging the mortgage and directing the 1^st respondent

¶28

to execute and register an acknowledgement in writing to the effect that the Mortgage Deed dated 14.07.2014 mortgaged by the applicant is discharged and consequently, direct the 1^st respondent to deliver related original documents and to pay Rs.90,10,510/- with interest from the date of plaint till the date of realization which is still pending before this Court. As the Mortgage Deed dated 14.07.2014 was executed by the applicant to the 1^st respondent, their relationship has been changed as Mortgagor and Mortgagee from Lessor and Lessee. During the pendency of Second Appeal, the Mortgagee cannot take the possession under eviction provision.

¶29

5.It has been further submitted that without considering the aforesaid

¶30

facts and circumstances, a Letter dated 18.06.2022 was issued under Section 4 of the

¶31

Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971. An appropriate reply was sent on 26.08.2022 and the applicant had also appeared before the 3^rd respondent. Without conducting proper enquiry, the 3^rd respondent had passed the impugned order dated 21.09.2022 to vacate the premises within 15 days of the date of publication failing which it was informed that they will be forcibly evicted. Further, the

¶32

respondents 1 to 3 have sealed all the entrances and prevented the applicant from using https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

the premises. Against the said order, CMA No.21 of 2022 filed by the applicant was

¶34

allowed by order dated 26.11.2024 thereby the impugned eviction order dated

¶35

21.09.2022 is set aside.

¶36

The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the

¶37

machineries used for manufacturing Ice, such as Compressor, Electrical Motors, Ammonia Gas Receiver and Cooling Coil and Ammonia Condensers, are to be maintained regularly. As the said premises is sealed and blocked, there is a every possibility that there can be leakage of Ammonia gas, which is very hazardous to the public in that area. In this regard, the applicant has also sent a letter dated 07.02.2024 to

¶38

the respondents requesting for permission for preserving the Ammonia in cooling coil to avoid any disaster. Hence, this Court may direct the respondent to remove the seal

¶39

and blocks from the entrances in the premises as prayed in the said application.

¶40

7.The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 has submitted that

¶41

the increase in rent is not a sudden process and is a periodical process as per clause 1(b) of lease agreement seeking along with additional security deposit. Further, the agreement made only for licence of the land to the applicant and not lease. As per the

¶42

Court order in W.A. No.1765 of 2013, the plaintiff paid the 50% of pending electricity https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

due amount of Rs.50,74,724/- and mortgaged buildings and machineries for the balance

¶44

of 50% due amount. After obtaining NOC, EB connection was obtained from TANGEDCO directly. However, the applicant has not paid the balance due amount to Chennai Port till date. Hence, the applicant is liable to pay Rs.50,74,724/- due to the Chennai Port along with interest and redeem the mortgage deed.

¶45

8.It has been further submitted that as the applicant did not pay the

¶46

required rent, after conducting the proper enquiry, eviction notice was served under Section 5 of the Public Premises (eviction of unauthorized occupant), 1971 dated 21.09.2022 and the applicant was evicted on 30.01.2024. Hence, the CMA No.21 of 2022 filed by the applicant would become inconsequential. There was no legal bar to seal and evict the premises. Even the 2^nd respondent sealed the premises of the applicant, the buildings and machineries are still under the mortgage of the 1^st respondent. No one can claim the same as the legal dispute is pending between the applicant and the 1^st respondent. Since already preliminary inspection and testing was carried out in the premises, there is no noticeable safety issue in the premises that will lead to any disaster. Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶47

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

¶48

Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

¶49

On perusal of the records, it is admitted fact that in view of the enhancement of the rent, the applicant has filed the suit in O.S No.6109 of 2013 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents herein to collect the enhanced rent which was partly decreed restraining the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession without due process of law and dismissed permanent injunction on other prayers and thereafter A.S. No.42 of 2021 filed by the applicant on the aforesaid dismissal portion, has been dismissed, the applicant has filed S.A.No.942 of 2022 before this Court for their relief which is pending to decide the issue of the parties and attain finality. At the same time, it is brought to notice of the Court that the applicant has succeeded in CMA No21 of 2022 by order dated 26.11.2024 thereby the impugned eviction order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Estate Officer, is set aside. While the suit is pending and eviction order is set aside, the seal and block to the said premises cannot be sustained and hence, this Court is inclined to allow this application directing the respondents to remove the seal and blocks from the the entrances in the premises.

¶50

In the result, the application stands allowed. No costs. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking lbm

01.2025

A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.

lbm

A NO. 2417 of 2024

¶56

in CS NO. 645 of 2017

¶57

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

¶58

.01.2025

¶59

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Eviction order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent (Estate Officer) under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 directing the applicant to vacate within 15 days of publication, failing which forcible eviction was threatened; the respondents 1 to 3 thereafter sealed all entrances and blocked the premises.¶31
Estate Officer (3rd respondent) · 21.09.2022
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S. No.6109 of 2013 filed by the applicant against enhancement of rent/licence fee was partly decreed by Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2019, granting permanent injunction not to disturb the applicant except by due process of law.¶23
Prior proceeding
First appeal stated (in the counsel's recitation) as A.S. No.42 of 2012 filed by the respondents, dismissed confirming the Trial Court judgment.¶23
Prior proceeding
The Court's own later recitation states A.S. No.42 of 2021 filed by the applicant on the dismissal portion was dismissed (record internally inconsistent with the earlier account of A.S. No.42 of 2012 filed by the respondents).¶49
Prior proceeding
Second Appeal S.A. No.942 of 2022 filed by the applicant before this Court is pending.¶49
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the Court's direction in W.A. No.1765 of 2013 (concerning arbitrary charging of electricity and service charges), the applicant created a Mortgage Deed.¶25
Prior proceeding
Mortgage Deed dated 14.07.2014 executed by the applicant in favour of the 1st respondent; relationship changed from Lessor/Lessee to Mortgagor/Mortgagee.¶28
Prior proceeding
Present suit CS No.645 of 2017 filed for discharge of the mortgage dated 14.07.2014, delivery of related original documents and payment of Rs.90,10,510/- with interest; pending before this Court.¶27
Prior proceeding
Letter dated 18.06.2022 issued under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971; reply sent on 26.08.2022 and the applicant appeared before the 3rd respondent.¶31
Prior proceeding
Respondents' version: after enquiry, eviction notice was served on 21.09.2022 and the applicant was evicted on 30.01.2024, rendering CMA No.21 of 2022 inconsequential in their submission.¶46
Prior proceeding
CMA No.21 of 2022 filed by the applicant against the eviction order was allowed by order dated 26.11.2024, setting aside the eviction order dated 21.09.2022.¶10

V.Balaji v. The Chennai Port Trust and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Balaji v. The Chennai Port Trust and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Suriyakumar and 4 Others Vs E.Rashiya Devi

Ramani Vs K.Yuvarani

Mukund Lal Chandak Vs Yogendra Chandak

V.S.Soundaravalli (Deceased) v.S.Sampath (Deceased) 1.Mrs.Mytilli Sampath and 2 others Vs v.Jayalakshmi (Deceased) 1.V.Sridharan and 2 others

P.Sureshkumar Vs P. Stalin

M.Muthu Vs Selvaraj and 4 others