Madras High Court
N.Thandayuthapani vs S. Jagdish on 23 August, 2023
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013
and
MP(MD)No.1 of 2013
N.Thandayuthapani : Petitioner
v.
1.The Commissioner,
Trichy Corporation,
Trichy.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Srirangam Division,
Trichy Corporation,
Trichy. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
the impugned order of the second respondent in Ref.Na.Ka.No.A1/2688/2002/Sri
dated 04.10.2013, quash the same and consequently, forbear the respondents from
in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the leasehold
shopping complex of the respondents situated at Gandhi Road near Amma
Mandapam Road, Srirangam Division, Trichy District.
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy,
Senior Counsel
Assisted by
Mr.S.Rajasekar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Senior Counsel
Assisted by
Mr.Kishore Ram
*****
ORDER
This writ petition is filed as against the order of the second respondent / Assistant Commissioner, Srirangam Division, in and by which, the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within a period of three months.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he was granted with a lease / license of a shopping complex situated in Gandhi Road / Amma Mandabam Road, Srirangam Municipality by the respondents by order dated 27.03.1992 for a period of three years. With an allegation that the petitioner has sub-leased the premises in violation of the terms and conditions, the respondents have attempted to disturb his possession and aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No. 1963 of 1996 for bare injunction before the District Munsif Court, Trichy. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for by its judgment and decree dated 11.09.2006. 2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013
3.It is the further case of the petitioner that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007. By this Government Order, the petitioner is entitled for further extension of the lease period for further 15 years with effect from 03.17.1997. Based on the decree of the civil Court and as per this Government Order, the petitioner is in occupation of the premises from 1992 and running a lodge in the premises in the name of “PILGRIM PALACE”.
4.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even though the lease agreement is only for three years, the petitioner is still paying the enhanced rent to the respondents without any default. The respondents Corporation are still accepting the rent without any objections. Therefore, the impugned notice is deemed to be waived, as per Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act. He further submitted that if the lessor accepts the rent after the determination of the lease, it has to be construed that the lease is renewed from month to month as that of the effect of holding over, as defined under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner, being a lessee, cannot be evicted in contravention to the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be inferred with. He has also relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in 3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 Nagpur Municipal Corporation v. Bhauroa Mohod and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad [(2020) 9 SCC 393].
5.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the subject property, which is very near to the Rajagopuram of Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, is owned by the respondents Corporation and the property is required to provide basic amenities to the devotees who are visiting the Temple from across the Country. The petitioner was provided with the lease only for three years with effect from 27.05.1992 and thereafter, the lease was never renewed. As per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.147, Municipal and Water Supply Department, dated 30.12.2000, the petitioner has to submit an application for renewal of lease, however, the petitioner has not submitted any application to renew the lease. As per the said Government Order, the enhanced rent should be 15% of the earlier rent, however, the petitioner is paying very meager amount to the Corporation.
6.He further submitted that as on the date of filing of this writ petition, more than 21 years have passed from the date of lease agreement and the petitioner is still in possession without any renewal of lease. Merely because the Corporation has not filed any appeal as against the judgment and decree passed by the District 4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 Munsif Court in O.S.No.1693 of 1996 dated 11.09.2006, it cannot be construed that the petitioner cannot be evicted from the premises forever. The Corporation Council of Tiruchirappalli has passed a resolution to cancel the lease given to the petitioner vide resolution in No.225 dated 25.09.2013 and based on the above resolution, the Corporation has sent the impugned notice to the petitioner to hand over the premises, by providing sufficient time of three months including 15 days for cancellation of tenancy as per the terms and conditions of the lease dated 26.03.1992. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal.
7.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.
8.The petitioner is the successful bidder of the auction conducted by the respondent Corporation on 27.04.1992. The then Commissioner of Municipality, Tiruchirappalli, by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/6689/90 dated 27.05.1992, has issued a lease / license to the petitioner to run a business in the shopping complex, which belongs to the Corporation, for the period of three years on a monthly rental basis. The rent was fixed as Rs.18,201/- for the fist year, Rs.20,931/- for the second year and Rs.24,071/- for the third year. The respondents have issued the impugned 5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 notice on 04.10.2013 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within a period of three months. The petitioner has challenged this impugned notice on the following three grounds:-
i) Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Principal District Munsif in O.S.No 1693 of 1996 dated 11.09.2016 is in his favor;
ii) As per G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007, the petitioner cannot be evicted;
and
iii) Since the petitioner is holding over the property, he is protected under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
i) Civil Court degree in O.S.No.1693 of 1996:-
9.The first contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for complete possession and enjoyment of the suit property as per the order of the civil Court in O.S.No.1693 of 1996. The petitioner claims that by decree dated 11.09.2006, the District Munsif Court, Trichy, has granted bare injunction as against the respondent Corporation. However, perusal of the order passed by the Court reveals that the suit filed by the petitioner is for permanent injunction and the decision of the court goes as follows:-
6/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 “ … Since this court also held that the relationship is lessor and lessee, the said Judgment is applicable. Hence this court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff has clearly established that he is in exclusive possession under Ex.A15 and he cannot be evicted unless by due process of law. Moreover, there is no oral evidence on the said of defendants”
10.When the suit was filed for permanent injunction, it is not known as to why the petitioner claimed before this Court that the suit was filed for bare injunction alone. Perusal of the order also reveals that the petitioner has filed this suit on the allegation that the respondents “demolished a portion of a thatched super structure put up by the plaintiff in a portion of a suit property on 30.07.1994”. This allegation is nothing but the admission of the petitioner that the petitioner has established the super structure on the premises in contravention of clause 6 of the terms and condition of the tender. For convenience, clause 6 of the tender condition is extracted as under:-
“6. chpikahiz chpik bgw;w nlj;jpy; vGj;J êykhf Kd;dhByBa efu;kd;wj;jpd; cj;jput[ bgw;wpUe;jhy; xHpa vt;tpj TLjy; my;yJ khWjy; (jw;fhypfkhfBth my;yJ epue;jukhfBth) fl;ol Btiyia bra;af;TlhJ. efuhl;rp fl;olj;jpw;F vt;tpj BrjKk; Vw;gLj;jf;TlhJ. gGJ VjhtJ Vw;gl;lhy; gGij rhp bra;a cz;lhFk; rpy;yiuj;bjhifia bfhLf;f chpikahiz bgw;wth; chpatuhthh;. kw;Wk; fl;olj;jpd; Bjhw;wj;ij khw;Wk; my;yJ bfLf;Fk; my;yJ mrpA;fg;gLj;Jk; vt;tpj Btiyiaa[k; bra;af;TlhJ.” 7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013
11.It is a settled law that admission is the best piece of evidence and it also operates as an estoppel. Since the petitioner himself has expressly admitted that he had put up a superstructure in contravention of the condition, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that he is entitled for the exclusive possession of the property forever. Further the decision of the civil Court is that the petitioner cannot be evicted without following the due process of law. The petitioner can be evicted at anytime by following the due process of Law. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled for exclusive protection based on the judgment passed by the civil Court is rejected.
12.The trial Court has further observed that no oral evidence was adduced on the side of defendants. Perusal of the list of documents produced before the civil Court reveals that the respondents did not produce any documents nor produced any witness before the Court to conduct the suit effectively. The Corporation has alleged in the present impugned order that “since the petitioner sub-leased the premises in contravention of the agreement, the Special Officer by his proceedings in No.2265 dated 11.11.94 has cancelled the lease / license granted to the petitioner”. It is relevant to extract clause 7 of the tender condition as follows:-8/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 “7. efh;kd;wk; my;yJ epiyf;FGtpy; vGj;J tothd Mizia bgw;wpUe;jhy; xHpa chpikahiz bgw;wth; jkJ chpikahizia khw;wthtJ my;yJ cs; chpkj;jpw;fhtJ tplf;TlhJ. chpikahiz nlj;ij my;yJ mjd; xU gFjpia cs; chpkj;jpw;F tpl;lhByh mDkjpaw;w Mf;fpukpg;ghf fUjp mth;fs; chpkk; uj;J bra;tBjhL mth;fs; fl;lhakhf btspBaw;wg;gLthh;fs;. fl;olj;ij efu;kd;wk; jdJ bghUg;gpy; vLj;J kWVyk; tpl chpika[z;L.”
13.The respondents claim that the petitioner has sub-leased the property to one N.Sivaraj in the year 1994. The sub lease agreement dated 26.03.1994 is also placed before the Court and the same has not been denied by the petitioner.
ii) G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administrative and Water supply department dated 03.07.2007:-
14.The next contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for further extension of lease as per G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007. The Government has enacted a new rule, namely, Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Rules, 2023, wherein the lease period is restricted to three years. Even assuming that as on the date of filing of this writ petition, the said Government Order was in existence, it was introduced only on 03.07.2007, whereas the petitioner was issued with a lease / license as early as on 27.05.1992 and it got expired in the year 1995. Any Government Order not being 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 enacted by the legislature specifically cannot be construed to operate retrospectively and it is only having prospective effect subject to the terms and conditions.
15.Moreover, the Government Order itself reads that it is issued to rectify certain practical difficulties while providing lease under G.O.Ms.No.147, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.12.2000. As per clause 4(1)(2) of G.O.Ms.No.147, the petitioner should have requested the Corporation to extend the lease by submitting an application three months before the expiry of the lease period. Without doing so, the petitioner was in occupation of the premises by utilizing the pending civil Court litigation. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he is protected under G.O.Ms.No. 92 is unacceptable.
iii) Deemed Provision under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act:-
16.The next contention raised by the petitioner is that the act of accepting the rent by the respondent Corporation has to be construed that the rent is renewed periodically as defined under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. For this contention, the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court 10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 in Nand Ram's case (supra) and the decision of Bombay High Court in Bhauroa Mohod's case (supra). For the sack of brevity, Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act is extracted as under:-
“116. Effect of holding over -
If a lessee or under-lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under- lessee, or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in section 106.”
17.The petitioner relied on paragraph 29 of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nand Ram's case (supra), wherein, it was held as follows:-
“29. ... After the expiry of lease period, and in the absence of payment of rent by the lessee, the status of the lessee will be that of tenant at sufferance and not a tenant holding over. Section 116 of the TP Act confers the status of a tenant holding over on a yearly or monthly basis keeping in view the purpose of the lease, only if the lessor accepts the payment of lease money. If the lessor does not accept the lease money, the status of the lessee would be that of tenant at sufferance. ...” 11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013
18.In the above decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has merely differentiated the tenant at sufferance and a tenant holding over. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, if the landlord accepts the rent after the expiry of the lease period, he has to be considered as a tenant of holding over under Section 116 of the Contract Act. However, this decision relied on by the petitioner does not deal with regard to the express agreements made between the parties and therefore, this decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
19.In the another precedent relied on by the petitioner in Bhauroa Mohod's case (supra), the Bombay High Court has held that when the lease is granted under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, the powers of Civil Court cannot be bypassed. In this decision also, there is no discussion with regard to the express agreements between the parties. Hence this decision is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
20.In Re Shanthi Prasad Devi and Others v. Shankar Mahto and Others [AIR 2005 SC 905], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
“19. The lessor in the present case had neither expressly nor 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 impliedly agreed for renewal. The renewal as provided in the original contract was required to be obtained by following a specified procedure i.e. on mutually agreed terms or in the alternative through the mediation of Mukhias and Panchas. In the instant case, there is a renewal clause in the contract prescribing a particular period and mode of renewal which was 'an agreement to the contrary' within the meaning of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the face of specific Clauses (7) & (9) for seeking renewal there could be no implied renewal by 'holding over' on mere acceptance of the rent offered by the lessee. In the instant case, option of renewal was exercised not in accordance with the terms of renewal clause that is before the expiry of lease. It was exercised after expiry of lease and the lessee continued to remain in use and occupation of the leased premises. The rent offered was accepted by the lessor for the period the lessee overstayed on the leased premises. The lessee, in the above circumstances, could not claim that he was 'holding over' as a lessee within the meaning of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act.”
21.In a similar case, the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Joseph and Company [AIR 2021 SC 4486], has observed as follows:-
“19. When there was breach providing the right to terminate the lease in respect of the entire leased land, even if the lease rental paid by the lessee has been accepted by the appellantlessor, it has not been shown that the requirement of the conditions in the proviso to Section 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 112 of the T.P. Act is satisfied. In the present situation, the land is leased by the government and when the breach had occurred the competent authority had issued the notice and the proceedings was initiated. Once the proceedings had been initiated even if the lease rental was received the same is saved under the second proviso. Further the situation is also that the payment of the rental made to the government would in any event be accepted as different functions are performed by different offices and any amount tendered will be received. That cannot give any advantage to the lessee merely because the rent has been tendered in the government office and the same has been innocuously accepted without there being specific reference to waiver.
20. On the question of waiver, it would be profitable to refer to the decision of this court in the case of Sarup Singh Gupta vs. S. Jagdish Singh and Others (2006) 4 SCC 205 wherein the contention relating to waiver due to acceptance of rent was considered, though in the context of Sections 111(h) and 113 of the T.P. Act, wherein it was held as hereunder:-
“6. Learned Senior Counsel also relied upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, reported in AIR 1926 (Calcutta) 763, wherein It was held that where rent is accepted after the notice to quit, whether before or after the suit has been filed, the landlord thereby shows an intention to treat the lease as subsisting and, therefore, where rent deposited with the Rent Controller under the Calcutta Rent Act is withdrawn even after the ejectment suit is filed, the notice to quit is waived. In our 14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 view, the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the High Court is too widely stated, and cannot be said to be an accurate statement of law. A mere perusal of Section 113 leaves no room for doubt that in a given case, a notice given under Section 111, Clause
(h), may be treated as having been waived, but the necessary condition is that there must be some act on the part of the person giving the notice evincing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting. Of course, the express or implied consent of the person to whom such notice is given must also be established. The question as to whether the person giving the notice has by his act shown an intention to treat the lease as subsisting is essentially a question of fact. In reaching a conclusion on this aspect of the matter, the Court must consider all relevant facts and circumstances, and the mere fact that rent has been tendered and accepted, cannot be determinative.
7. A somewhat similar situation arose in the case in Shanti Prasad Devi v. Shankar Mahto. That was a case where the landlord accepted rent even on expiry of the period of lease. A submission was urged on behalf of the tenant in that case that Section 116, Transfer of Property Act was attracted and there was a deemed renewal, of the lease. Negativing the contention, this Court observed that mere acceptance of rent for the subsequent months in which the lessee continued to occupy the premise even, after the expiry of the period of the lease, cannot be said to be a conduct signifying his assent to the continuing of the lease even after the 15/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 expiry of the lease period. Their Lordships noticed the conditions incorporated in the agreement itself, which provided for renewal of the lease and held that those conditions having not been fulfilled, the mere acceptance of rent after expiry of period of lease did not signify assent to the continuance of the lease.” In that view, the waiver as contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondent lessee is unsustainable.”
22.Thus, it is settled law that a tenant / lessee will be considered as a tenant holding over only in the absence of written agreement entered between the parties. If there is an express written agreement to determinate the lease between the parties, Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act will not come to rescue the illegal Act committed by the petitioner.
23.Further, Section 113 of Transfer of property Act reads that a notice for eviction under Section 111(h) is waived, with a express or implied consent of the person to whom it is given, by any act on the part of the person giving it showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting. Thus, as per this provision and the decision referred above, there must be an intention from the lessor to treat the lease as a subsisting one. Pending this writ petition, the Corporation has issued notices to the petitioner on 19.10.2015 and 11.08.2016 and in fact, in the challan receipt 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 the following endorsement was made by the Corporation:-
“Without prejudice to our case and notice issued by us terminating the tenancy in your favour, this amount is received towards damages for use and occupation of property belonging to Tiruchirappalli City Corporation”
24.It appears that the respondents Corporation accepted this amount only as a damages and not as a rent. The Corporation does not have any intention to extend the lease of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is not at all entitled for any protection under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act.
25.The Government of Tamil Nadu considering the difficulties faced by the government authorities while evicting the unauthorized occupants from the properties of government has enacted 'THE TAMILNADU PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1975' and the relevant provisions are extracted as under:-
“Section 2 -
(e) "public premises" means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Government, ...
(g) "unauthorised occupation", in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 authority for such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever, Section 11 (1) If any person who has been evicted from any penalty. public premises under this Act again occupies the premises without authority for such occupation, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both ...”
26.Thus, a person, who is holding a public premises after the determination of lease, is an unauthorized occupant as defined under section 2(g) of the Act.
27.The impugned notice further reads that the petitioner is running a lodge in the premises by having 35 individual residential rooms, in violation of the terms and conditions and in support of the allegation, the Corporation has produced the photograph of the lodge before this Court. It is relevant to extract the lease condition number 18 as follows:-
18/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 “18. fl;olg; gFjpfspy; FoapUf;f cgBahfpf;f TlhJ. fl;olj;jpd; jiuj;jsj;jpid czt[ tpLjpahfBth (Hotel) my;yJ gy;Jiw mA;fhoahfBth (Departmental Stores) gad;gLj;jyhk;. Kjy; jsj;jpid (Hotel) czt[ tpLjpahfBth my;yJ jA;Fk; tpLjpahfBth gad;gLj;jpf; bfhs;syhk;. nuz;lhk; jsj;jpYs;s miwfis jA;Fk; miwfshf kl;Lk; gad;gLj;j Btz;Lk;."
28.The building is having two floors. As per clause 18 of the agreement, the petitioner is entitled to run a hotel or the departmental store in the ground floor of the premises. He can run a hotel or a lodge in the first floor and the rooms in the second floor are to be used for lodging purpose. However, the petitioner has converted the entire building into a lodge by making material change in the property without getting any prior permission from the Corporation.
29.This case is an example as to how the properties of the Government is being misused either with the connivance of the government authorities or due to the ineffectiveness of certain instrumentalities of the State. It is also very sad to mention that sometimes this Court has also been used as a tool for the illegal encroachers by allowing the petition pending for a long time before the Court.
30.The petitioner is a lessee and he entered the property by way of a lease 19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 agreement dated 27.03.1992. This lease was issued only for a period of three years and within three years, the respondent Corporation has initiated action against this petitioner for the violation of lease condition that he has sub-leased the property in the year 1994. The petitioner has approached the civil Court and the civil Court has passed a degree that the petitioner shall not be evicted without following the due process of law. The Corporation has not defended the suit by adducing any evidence and has not preferred any appeal and it apparently shows the inefficiency of the Corporation. The property is said to be a prime property adjacent very near to Sri Ranganatha Swamy Temple, Srirangam. The Corporation needs this property to the extent of 10,746 sq.metres for providing basic amenities like car parking, toilet etc., to the devotees who are visiting the Temple.
31.Clause 35 of the agreement enables the Corporation to get the property back and accordingly, the impugned notice was issued in the year 2013. Clause 35 is extracted as under:-
“35. bghJkf;fs; ed;ikia cj;Bjrpj;J Bkw;go chpikia Koj;JtpLtJ mtrpabkd;W jpUr;rp $py;yh fbyf;lUf;fhtJ efu rigf;fhtJ vg;BghjhtJ Bjhd;wpdhy; Bkw;go fbyf;luhfpYk;, fkp`duhfpYk; chpikjhuUf;F Behl;O^; mDg;gptpl;L chpikia uj;J bra;a mjpfhuKz;L. mjid iybrd;Rf;F vLj;Jf; bfhs;gth; Kd;djhf brYj;jpapUf;ff;Toa ahbjhUtpjkhd bjhif rA;fpah ghpkhzg;go Fiwf;fg;gLtijj; jtpu BtW vt;tpjkhd gpujpgyida[k; bgw 20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 iybrd;^; vLj;Jf; bfhz;ltUf;F mUfijapy;iy."
32.This Court, while entertaining this writ petition in the year 2013, has ordered notice and also granted an interim stay. The Corporation has not taken any steps to vacate the interim stay and this writ petition has also not been listed till 2022. The lease agreement was granted in the year 1992 for a period of three years and there is no extension of lease either expressly or impliedly. As discussed above, the petitioner is not protected under Sections 113 and 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. The amount was received from the petitioner only with objections. There are specific conditions under the lease agreement and the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement. The petitioner has also violated the lease agreement by sub leasing the property and also making material changes without any permission. The Corporation is having every right to evict this petitioner on the violation of lease conditions. Sufficient time of three months is also provided to vacate the premises by the impugned notice, as per clause 35 of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement.
33.This impugned notice which was issued in the year 2013 is challenged in 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013 this writ petition and the same is kept pending without any progress for nearly 10 years. The petitioner, a lessee who entered into a lease agreement for a period of three years, is holding the property by way of these litigations for the past 29 years. In the absence of renewal of lease, the petitioner has to be termed as an encroacher under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and he is liable to be evicted. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall vacate the premises within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondent Corporation is at liberty to recover the arrears of rent from the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No. 92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007.
In fine, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No 23.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
gk
22/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013
To
1.The Commissioner,
Trichy Corporation,
Trichy.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Srirangam Division,
Trichy Corporation,
Trichy.
23/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
WP(MD)No.18596 of 2013
23.08.2023
24/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis