M/S.Joyalukkas India Limited v. The Union Of India
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.6247 of 2024 M/s.Joyalukkas India Limited, Joyalukkas Jewellery, Situated at Madurai Multi Functional Complex (P) Ltd., West Veli Street, Railway Station Premises, Madurai-625 001. Represented by its Authorised Person.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Union of India, The Ministry of Railways, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001.
Rep. by its Secretary.
2.Rail Land Development Authority, Situated at number 702-B, 7th Floor, Konnectus Tower-2, DMRC Building, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-110002. Represented by its Chairman.
3.M/s.Ircon Infrastructure and Services Limited, (Ircon SL) Government of India, Situated at Plot Number C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer.
4.Madurai Multifunctional Complex Private Limited (MMCPL) Situated at Block C, 2nd Floor, Chowringhee Mansion, 1/5
30, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata-700016.
5.The Estate Officer, Southern Railway, Division Office, Works Branch, Madurai-625 001.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to issue direction to the 3rd Respondent M/s.IRCON ISL shall consider the representation dated 02.02.2024 of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Mohammed Mustafa For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindarajan DSGI for R1 & R2 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar for R4 : Mr.Nishit Kosh for R3
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. The petition mentioned land belongs to the second respondent. The second respondent leased out the same in favour of the third respondent on 04.07.2013. The third respondent entered into sub-lease with the fourth respondent. The case of the fourth respondent is that what was given to them was only a shell like structure and that they may considerable investment to develop the property. Thereafter, the fourth respondent entered into lease 2/5
agreement with the petitioner herein. It is seen that there has arisen a dispute between the third respondent on the one hand and the fourth respondent on the other. Arbitration proceedings have also been initiated. Since the petitioner did not clear their rental dues, eviction notice came to be issued by the Estate Officer / R5. The eviction proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, because the dues of the third respondent have not been settled. In this background, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. The petitioner states that he is willing to make payment directly to the third respondent and wants the third respondent to recognise them as their tenants. In this regard, the petitioner has given a representation dated 02.02.2024. The learned counsel for the third respondent states that it is too early for the third respondent to recognize the petitioner as a tenant. They may permit the petitioner to be in the premises as their permissive occupant. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would add that the proceedings taken under the Public Premises Act cannot be a part of the arbitration proceedings. He drew my attention to clause 19 of the sub-lease agreement between the parties.
3/5
4. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would strongly oppose such arrangement. The fourth respondent would state that substantial investment made by the fourth respondent is at stake and that they cannot be short-changed in the process.
5. This writ petition is disposed of by recording the stand of the third respondent that they are willing to consider the petitioner's representation on appropriate terms and conditions. Such a disposal will not come in the way of the fourth respondent from enforcing their rights as against the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.04.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi 4/5
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi 08.04.2024 5/5