G.Saroja Gajendran v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN and WMP No. 50252 of 2025

1. G.Saroja Gajendran Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Commissioner Corporation Of Tambaram, Office Of The Corporation, Zone 4, Sriperumbudur, Chennai.

Respondent(s) PRAYER directing the respondent to dispose of representation dated 20.9.2025 by providing the petitioner with an alternative accommodation For Petitioner(s):

M/s.K.Gopi G.Janakiraman N.Karpagalakshmi For Respondent(s):

M/s.P.Srinivas, SC 1/

O R D E R

The petitioner is an occupant of a Jeeva Complex belonging to the respondent. He is running a fruits shop under the name and style ''GS FRUITS''. The petitioner states that he is paying the amounts due to the respondent without any default. The respondent had informed the petitioner to vacate and handover the possession of the property as the complex, is the subject matter of acquisition by the National Highways.

2. The petitioner pleads that his lease rights is valid till 31.03.2027 and therefore, even if the premise is acquired, he should be given with an alternate site for the purpose of carrying on his livelihood. To that effect, he has made a representation dated 20.09.2025 and since no order is passed, he is before this Court.

3. Mr. P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the sole respondent states that the Jeeva Complex is to be acquired for connecting the Town of Tambaram 2/

with Mudichur road. Hence, the National Highways had decided to acquire the land. Therefore, the Commissioner was constrained to call upon the occupants to vacate and hand over the possession. He states that the petitioner has no right to continue any occupation, once the property is acquired. He also states that there are no alternate sites available to accommodate persons like the petitioner.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a lessee of a shop in the Jeeva Complex owned by the respondent. The complex itself is to be acquired by the appropriate Government, in exercise of its power, of eminent domain. If the acquisition takes place before the expiry of the lease period 31.03.2027, the respondent would be liable to refund the amount, which has been collected for unoccupied period. The lessee cannot claim as of a right to an alternate accommodation. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently pleads that all that he seeks for dispose of his representation dated 20.09.2025, when he has no legal right other than the right to refund, I am not inclined to 3/

give the said direction.

6. With liberty to the petitioner to seek refund of the unoccupied period, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

19-11-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Maya To 1.The Commissioner Corporation Of Tambaram, Office Of The Corporation, Zone 4, Sriperumbudur, Chennai.

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.

Maya 4/

W.P. No. 45110 of 2025 5/

Dated : 24.11.2025 6/

7/