M.Kamaal v. The Commissioner
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P(MD)No.15033 of 2025 M.Kamaal ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation Madurai 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Zone - 3 (Central), Madurai City Municipal Corporation Madurai.
3.S.Shahida Parveen
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 made in Na.Ka.No.Z3D1/L1/005101/2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits forthwith. 1/9
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Sankarapandian For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Sivabalan Standing Counsel For R3 : M/s.Yasmin Begam
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 25.06.2025 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.Z3D1/L1/005101/2025 of the second respondent.
2. Mr.K.Sivabalan, leanred Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and M/s.Yasmin Begam, learned counsel takes notice for the third respondent.
3. By the impugned communication, the shop which was rented out to the petitioner way back in the year 1988 vide rental agreement dated 25.09.1988 is sought to be vacated as the building of the shop is purportedly in dilapidated and dangerous condition.
2/9
4. The specific case of the petitioner is that after the petitioner's grandfather passed away, the dispute arose between the petitioner and the third respondent's grandmother. R.C.O.P.No.337 of 1995 was filed, wherein the third respondent's grandmother secured a favorable order dated 16.04.2002. It is submitted that aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed R.C.A.No.56 of 2005, which was allowed ex parte on 10.08.2009.
5. It is submitted that steps have been initiated to vacate the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.379 of 2024 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai for permanent injunction to restrain the third respondent from evicting the petitioner. It is submitted that instead of contesting the aforesaid proceeding, the third respondent who has acquired right over the property after the death of her grandmother approached the second respondent to demolish the building as if it is in a dilapidated condition.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner had renovated the building in the year 1992 during the life time of the third respondent's grandfather and has been carrying on business since then. The attempt of the third respondent and 3/9
her grandmother since 1995 was to vacate the petitioner was rendered futile. It is further submitted that the building is not in dilapidated condition and the building is only thirty years old since it was built in the year 1992.
7. The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the complex consisted of four shops, out of which the three shops have already been demolished and new construction is being put up. The petitioner however continues to occupy the building on the strength of the ex parte order obtained in R.C.A.No.56 of 2005. It is submitted that the petitioner does not have any rental agreement as it was not been renewed after the death of the third respondent's grandfather. It is submitted that the building is more than 90 years old and order has been passed by the second respondent for demolition after examining the stability certificate. That apart, it is submitted that the second respondent had already passed an order as early as on 28.05.2024 in proceedings No.1005878/2024.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the third respondent. 4/9
9. The facts are not disputed as mentioned above. The second respondent had already passed an order on 28.05.2024 in his proceeding bearing proceedings No.1005878/2024. Since the petitioner refused to vacate the premises, the third respondent was constrained to approach this Court by filing writ petition in W.P(MD)No.11439 of 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.04.2025 with the following observations: "6. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.03.2025, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject matter, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the same on its own merits.
7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
10. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was heard and the petitioner's reply/representation dated 22.05.2022 was considered which is culminated in the impugned communication/order dated 25.06.2025, which reads as under:
5/9
6/9
11. This Court is not really concern with the decision of the respondents and is only concern with the decision making process. An order was passed earlier on 28.05.2024. Thereafter the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 wherein it has been categorically concluded that the building lacks stability and it is in dilapidated condition based on the stability certificate obtained by the third respondent. The petitioner cannot claim a right to lease over the property not withstanding the fact that the property is in dilapidated condition. No contra evidence was produced by the petitioner that the building was not in dilapidated condition. It is therefore not open to the petitioner to argue that the order passed by the second respondent is without any merits. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed.
12. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been running the shop for more than 30 years since 1988, the petitioner is granted grace period of 30 days from today to vacate the premise. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.07.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No 7/9
Internet : Yes / No sn To 1.The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation Madurai 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Zone - 3 (Central), Madurai City Municipal Corporation Madurai.
8/9
C.SARAVANAN, J.
sn W.P(MD).No.19571 of 2025 21.07.2025 9/9