G.Sekar v. The Municipality Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.05.2022 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.Nos.13408, 13411, 13412, 13413, 13414, 13418, 13421, 13422 and 13429 of 2022 and connected miscellaneous petitions WMP.Nos.12627 to 12642, 12644 & 12645/2022 G.Sekar
...Petitioner in W.P.Nos.13408, 13413,
13414, 13421, 13422&13429 of 2022 Gangatharan.C ...Petitioner in W.P.No.13411 of 2022 Anbu ...Petitioner in W.P.No.13412 of 2022 R.Velu ...Petitioner in W.P.No.13418 of 2022 Vs.
The Municipal Commissioner O/o. Thiruvathipuram Municipality, Municipal Office No.5, AnumanThanpet Thiruvathipuram- 604 407.
...Respondent
Common Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned notice dated 13.05.2022 bearing number 2440/2021/A1 passed by the respondent and quash the same and the proceedings arising thereof and consequently to hold proper and fresh proceedings within the time frame. For the Petitioner in all WPs : Mr.Kaviyanathan for M/s.Nathan and Associates For the Respondent in all WPs : Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Balathandayutham Special Government Pleader COMMON ORDER The writ petitions on hand has been instituted questioning the notice dated 13.05.2022 issued by the respondent Municipality.
2. The petitioners state that they are in occupation of the commercial complex in Thiruvathipuram locality and the premise
belongs to the Thiruvathipuram Municipality. The petitioners are paying the monthly rent and continuing their businesses in the respective commercial premises alloted to them. 3.The grievances of the writ petitioners are that the respondent issued a notice to vacate the premises on or before 31.05.2022 and pay the arrears of rent before the said date. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that the petitioners are in possession of the commercial shops and they require some time to vacate. It is their contention that some petitioners have paid future rents and therefore, they may be permitted to continue in the premises and the reason stated for vacating the premises are also not convincing. 5.
Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent objected the said contention by stating that some petitioners are defaulters. No doubt, some other petitioners have paid the rent. However, the commercial complex is declared as not fit for dwelling purposes and the Municipality had taken a decision to demolish the said building and construct a new building. Necessary building plan approval were obtained from the competent authorities and the work order for the commencement of construction work are also given by the respondent Municipality. In view of the fact that the petitioners are not vacating the premises, the Municipality is unable to commence the construction work in the commercial complex. The petitioners have no right to continue in the premises and they further participated in the meeting conducted on 26.
10.2021 and 09.05.2022. The grievances were considered and the need for construction of new building was also explained before the traders. Their objections were looked into and the final decision was taken to demolish the building and to construct a new building in that locality. While so, the grounds raised in the writ petitions are untenable and in the event of any untowarded incident in the building, which is in a dilapidated condition, the Municipality would be responsible and therefore, any delay would cause prejudice to all the parties and stakeholders.
6.Learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that the petitioners need some more time for vacating the premises and accordingly requested for a pass-over to get instructions from the petitioners. The writ petitions were passed-over and again taken up during the afternoon session and on getting instructions, learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that the petitioners are ready to vacate the premises and some more time is required. Though learned counsel for the petitioner requested for two months, this Court is of the opinion that one month would be sufficient as the matter is
pending for several months and more so the respondent Municipality has already obtained building plan approval and granted work order in favour of the contractors and the building work are to be commenced without any delay. The delay in construction would result in financial loss to the Municipality.
7.Considering the facts and circumstances and based on the undertaking given by the petitioner to vacate the premises within a period of one month from today, this court is inclined to grant one month time to vacate the respective premises by the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to vacate the premises and handover the possession to the competent authorities of the respondent Municipality on or before 30.06.2022.
8.It is needless to state that after construction of a new commercial building, the petitioners are at liberty to submit their respective applications for allotment, if they are otherwise eligible in accordance with the rules in force. The respondents are at liberty to recover the arrears of rents, if any, from the respective petitioners by following the procedures as contemplated. In case of excess payment of rent, the same shall also be refunded to the petitioners concerned. 9.Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar/ Vacation Officer //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kk/drm To:
The Municipal Commissioner O/o. Thiruvathipuram Municipality Municipal Office, No.5, Anumanthanpet Thiruvathipuram- 604 407.
+1cc to M/s.Nathan and Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.31913 W.P.Nos.13408, 13411, 13412, 13413,13414, 13418, 13421, 13422 and 13429 of 2022 and connected miscellaneous petitions AJS(CO) RGA(02/06/2022) (03/06/2022)