Disposed

The Bombay Burman Trading v. Principal Chief Conservator

Madras HC18 Aug 2025WA/1435/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lease rent demands by Project Tiger authorities challenged by a corporation were set aside by consent and remanded for re-quantification after hearing both parties; the writ appeal was disposed on similar terms, leaving the question of jurisdiction to revise rent open.

What did the court decide?

Lease rent demands set aside and remanded for re-quantification with liberty to contest; writ appeals/petitions disposed, no costs.

The Bombay Burman Trading Vs Principal Chief Conservator — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

2025:MHC:1991

¶2

W.A.No.1435 of 2017 & W.P(MD).Nos.8259 of 2018 & 1311 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 18.08.2025

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶7

W.A.No. 1435 of 2017

¶8

and

¶9

W.P.(MD) Nos. 8259 of 2018 & 1311 of 2019

¶10

¶11

W.M.P(MD) Nos. 7835,19999 of 2018, 1116, 1117 of 2019

¶12

W.A.No. 1435 of 2017

¶13

The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd., Mudis, Valparia, Coimbatore District, Rep. by its General Manager, Legal & Personnel, Divakaran Moorkath.

¶14

.. Appellant

¶15

¶16

1.Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,

¶17

Panagal Buildings,

¶18

Chennai - 600 015.

¶19

2.The Deputy Director,

¶20

Project Tiger, Ambasamudaram 627 401.

¶21

.. Respondents

¶22

Prayer in W.A.No. 1435 of 2017: Appeal filed under Clause 15 against order dated 01.09.2017 made in W.P.No.41358 of 2005.

¶23

W.P.(MD) No. 8259 of 2018

¶24

1/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.A.No.1435 of 2017 & W.P(MD).Nos.8259 of 2018 & 1311 of 2019

¶27

The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager - Legal Singampatti, Tirunelveli District.

¶28

.. Petitioner

¶29

¶30

1.The Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Buildings, Chennai - 600 025.

¶31

2.The Deputy Director / Wildlife Warden, Project Tiger, Ambasamudram - 627 401.

¶32

.. Respondents

¶33

Prayer in W.P.(MD) No. 8259 of 2018 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent pertaining to Order bearing C.No.D/3228/2002 dated 13.02.2018 as well as consequential communication bearing C.No.D/3228/2002 dated 21.02.2018 and quash the same.

¶34

W.P.(MD) No. 1311 of 2019

¶35

The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Manager - Legal Singampatti, Tirunelveli District.

¶36

.. Petitioner

¶37

¶38

1.The Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Buildings, Chennai - 600 025.

¶39

2.The Deputy Director, Project Tiger, Ambasamudram - 627 401. .. Respondents

¶40

Prayer in W.P.(MD) No. 1311 of 2019 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for

¶41

2/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.A.No.1435 of 2017 & W.P(MD).Nos.8259 of 2018 & 1311 of 2019

¶44

the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to Order bearing C.No.D/3228/2002 dated 04.01.2009 and quash the same.

¶45

Appeal / Petition Numbers	For Appellants / Petitioners	For Respondents / Respondents
W.A.No. 1435 of	Mr.Srinath Sridevan,	Mr.P.S.Raman,
2017	Senior Counsel	Advocate-General
W.P.(MD) Nos.	for	assisted by
8259 of 2018 &	Mr. PMN.	Dr.T.Seenivasan,
1311 of 2019	Bhagavath Krishnan	Special Government Pleader

¶46

COMMON ORDER

¶47

(Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

¶48

We have heard the detailed submissions of Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel, for Mr.PMN. Bhagavath Krishnan, learned counsel, appears for the appellant / writ petitioner and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate-General, who appears for Dr.T.Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader, for the State.

¶49

By consent, the demands of lease rent impugned in the two writ petitions viz., W.P.(MD) Nos. 8259 of 2018 and 1311 of 2019 are set aside and the matters stand remanded to the file of the Deputy Director, Project Tiger, Ambasamudaram 627 401 / R2 for re-quantification. Needless to say, the parties shall be heard in full, by issuance of notice, prior to any orders being passed.

¶50

3/6

¶51

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

¶52

W.A.No.1435 of 2017 & W.P(MD).Nos.8259 of 2018 & 1311 of 2019

¶53

As far as W.A.No. 1435 of 2017 is concerned, the prayer in W.P.No. 41358 of 2005 to which this writ appeal pertains, was for the issuance of writ of certiorari challenging order dated 13.10.2005 passed by the Deputy Director, Project Tiger, Ambasamudram.

¶54

In that order, the respondents had sought to enhance the lease

¶55

rents and revise the same. The stand of the writ petitioner / appellant before us, is to the effect that there could be no enhancement of rent for the reason that the terms stood crystallized by virtue of the agreements entered into inter se.

¶56

While disposing the writ petition on 01.09.2017, the writ court, has, at paragraph 60 (ix), granted liberty to the respondents to issue notice indicating the revised rent payable and has said that, as and when such notice was issued, the petitioner shall give a suitable reply.

¶57

In view of the demands impugned in W.P.(MD) Nos. 8259 of 2018 and 1311 of 2019 having been set aside, the liberty granted to the petitioner and respondents as above, is reiterated. While issuing notice for re-quantification of rent, the respondents may put the writ petitioner / appellant to notice of revision / escalation of rent and the writ petitioner / appellant is at liberty to contest the same both on merits as well as on assumption of jurisdiction, as well as on any other ground available in

¶58

4/6

¶59

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

¶60

W.A.No.1435 of 2017 & W.P(MD).Nos.8259 of 2018 & 1311 of 2019

¶61

law. Hence on this aspect of assumption of jurisdiction to revise the rent,

¶62

it is left open for decision by the authorities.

¶63

Notice be issued within a period of three weeks from today

¶64

i.e., on or before 08.09.2025, and proceedings be concluded by the

¶65

authority after hearing the Appellant / writ petitioner, prior to 15.10.2025.

¶66

The writ appeals / writ petitions stand disposed in terms of

¶67

this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶68

[A.S.M., J] [N.S., J] 18.08.2025

¶69

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes

¶70

ssm

¶71

¶72

1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Buildings, Chennai - 600 015.

¶73

2.The Deputy Director/ Wildlife Warden, Project Tiger, Ambasamudaram 627 401.

¶74

3.The Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Buildings, Chennai - 600 025.

¶75

5/6

¶76

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

¶77

W.A.No.1435 of 2017 & W.P(MD).Nos.8259 of 2018 & 1311 of 2019

¶78

DR. ANITA SUMANTH, J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

¶79

ssm

¶80

W.A.No.1435 of 2017 and

¶81

W.P.(MD) Nos. 8259 of 2018 & 1311 of 2019

¶82

18.08.2025

¶83

6/6

¶84

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

The Bombay Burman Trading v. Principal Chief Conservator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Bombay Burman Trading v. Principal Chief Conservator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.G.Balakrishnan & Brothers Vs the Tneb

K.P.Selvaraman, Vs K.Sairam

Kj Vinod(Insolvency Professional ) Vs the Registrar of the National Company Law Tribunal -

The Inspector General of Registration Vs M/S Icmc Corporation Ltd.

Murugappakkam Kaviarasu Bharathiyar Nagar Manai Vangiyor Nalvazhu Sangam Vs The Pondicherry Housing Board Employees Union

Vijayalakshmi Vs The Special District Revenue Officer(La)