M. Seetha, v. The Commissioner,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.08.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 M.Seetha ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner, Palayamkottai Panchayat Union, Palayamkottai.

2.The District Manager, TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation), Tirunelveli District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of impugned Demand notice issued by the first respondent herein in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.A3/4714/2003 dated 18.02.2015 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent herein to recover the rent arrears from the second respondent Corporation for the building in Door No. 122 & 123, Hindu Chatram, Opp. to Arulmigu Salaikumara Swami Kovil, Tirunelveli Junction for the period 2003 to 2011.

1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nallathambi For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar for R.1 Mr.S.Sivanesen for R.2

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks time since he wants to get further instructions from the writ petitioner.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the local body informs the Court that the petitioner appears to be no more.

4. This is a matter that can be disposed of on merits today itself. The site and building originally belonged to the local body. It was leased out in favour of the writ petitioner's husband. The original lessee passed away. The building is said to have fallen down on account of fire accident. It was rebuilt. It was sub leased in favour of the second respondent. 2/4

5. The petitioner however did not pay the rent in time to the local body. Therefore, the local body issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to surrender the building and also clear the arrears. The local body also wanted the petitioner to compensate them for having demolished the premises. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

6. None of the factual aspects set out in the impugned order has been controverted. No case for interference has been made out. This writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

16.08.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No MGA To 1.The Commissioner, Palayamkottai Panchayat Union, Palayamkottai.

2.The District Manager, TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation), Tirunelveli District.

3/4

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

MGA and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 16.08.2023 4/4