Hotel Temple Tower (P) Ltd., v. The Secretary
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and W.M.P(MD).Nos.19157, 19158 and 19159 of 2021 Hotel Temple Tower (P) Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, M.Venkatachalam ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary, Revenue (LD6(1) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur.
4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thanjavur Town.
... 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 notice issued by the second respondent in R.C.No.H2/75697/2006 dated 13.12.2021 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohan Kumar For Respondents : Mr.D.Ghandiraj, Special Government Pleader.
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed questioning a notice dated 13.12.2021 in R.C.No.H2/75697/2006 issued by the second respondent / the District Collector, Thanjavur District.
1/4
2. The writ petitioner had a long winding litigation questioning not only possession, but also questioning demand of lease rent and claim that the petitioner had sublet the property and seeking to retain the land without making any effective payment towards the lease amount.
3. As an illustration, let me point out an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, in W.P(MD).No.5484 of 2016. The learned Single Judge in the course of the order, which had been filed questioning a Government Order passed by the Government in G.O.(Ms).No.115 Revenue [LD6(1)] Department dated 01.03.2016, had observed that even in the year 2016, the petitioner hotel was due and payable of a sum of Rs.2,52,71,173/- (Two Crores Fifty Two Lakhs Seventy One Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Three only). The learned Single Judge, had, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was due and payable with such a huge amount, directed that a sum of Rs.25 lakhs should be paid on or before 06.06.2016 even without waiting for a copy of that order. This order was passed on 29.04.2016. This has been indicated only to point out that the petitioner has been running the hotel only on the strength of interim orders passed and not based on the rights as claimed.
4. A further perusal of the facts also reveal that the petitioner, had also filed a suit which was rejected at the SR stage itself and later, had also occasion to approach the Sub Court in A.S.No.105 of 1997 which was also again dismissed inviting the passing of an adverse order to the petitioner's interest. It is thus seen that for the past nearly about 25 years, the petitioner had continued to be in occupation of the hotel merely on the strength of interim orders granted by this Court than in complying with the demands of the respondents.
5. It is also seen that there was yet another order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD).No.10888 of 2013, wherein, the learned Single Judge, again taking into account the fact that the petitioner was in arrears of the lease rent, had directed that the petitioner should continue to pay the rent at the sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said amount is being paid. But no answer is given with respect to the balance of amount payable after effecting the aforesaid amount of Rs.25 lakhs whereas the demand on that date was more than Rs.2 crores. At some point, even if there is no direction of the Court, the petitioner should have come forward to make the payments as demanded by the respondents.
6. In the impugned order, there is a reference to a notice of the year 2019. There is no explanation given as to why that particular notice had not been questioned or challenged or disputed by the petitioner herein. It is seen that in the impugned order, after referring to the aforesaid notice dated 14.11.2019, it had 2/4
been stated that the records reveal that the petitioner had sublet the hotel to two individuals namely, M.Kumar and M.Venkadachalam. It is also stated that there is pendency of payment of arrears of lease amount and there has been violation of the lease conditions. These are all issues of facts which this Court can never examine.
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Venkadachalam, is the Managing Director of the petitioner hotel which is Private Limited Company. As to whether he runs the hotel with legal status or has been inducted in the position of the Managing Director as a guise to screen away the actual relationship with Selvaraj, the original Promoter of the hotel are facts which can never be examined by a Writ Court. It is the contention of the respondents that Venkadachalam is a sub lessee. That, as a matter of fact, will have to be controverted only by the lessee in manner known to law. Filing a Writ Petition can never come to the rescue of the petitioner herein.
8. There is yet another allegation that there is one more individual namely, M.Kumar to whom also the hotel had been sublet. The status of M.Kumar is not known to the Court. Whether there has been actual subletting or not is an issue which can be decided only by the authorities and the petitioner will have to appear before the authorities to clarify on all these issues.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have an obligation, as directed by an earlier order of this Court, to place necessary grounds with respect to the violation of the building. In this regard, learned counsel places reliance on an interim direction of this Court and stated that since there has been violation of the same, the petitioner had also filed a Contempt Petition.
10. When there are so many petitions still pending before the Court, the relief sought in the present Writ Petition could also have been filed as a miscellaneous petition in those Writ Petitions. It is seen that the Contempt Petition No.95 of 2020 had been filed for breach of an order in W.M.P(MD).No.4925 of 2016 in W.P(MD). No.5484 of 2016. Whether the Contempt Petition will lie against an interim order is questionable and therefore, the petitioner cannot take any shelter from the fact that he had filed a Contempt Petition, and that an interim direction had been granted by the Court. It will be the outcome of the final Writ Petition which will decide the fate of the petitioner herein insofar as the present Writ Petition is concerned.
11. I must reiterate that the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 makes reference to a notice dated 14.11.2019 which had been received by the petitioner on 19.11.2019. There is no explanation as to what the petitioner did after receiving such notice. It is the contention of the respondents that there has been 3/4
violation of the terms of the lease particularly with respect to the payment of lease amount and more specifically with respect to subletting to the two named individuals. Issues of facts cannot be examined by this Court sitting in Writ jurisdiction.
12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Lm Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To 1.The Secretary, Revenue (LD6(1) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur.
4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thanjavur Town.
+1 CC to M/s.G.MOHAN KUMAR, Advocate (SR-39882[F] dated 21/12/2021 ) 21.12.2021 NSN(CO) GC(11.01.2022) 4P 6C 4/4