Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1280 (MAD)

R. Muthukrishnan v. District Collector

2014-06-12

R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. W.P(MD)No.13197 of 2012 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from cancelling the petitioner's Licence in respect of Shop No.3, Shopping Complex, Tiruparankundram, for the period from 01.09.2012 to 31.08.2015 by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1/2010/A1 dated 06.09.2012, without due process of law. 2. W.P(MD)No.13551 of 2012 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1/2010/A1 dated 08.10.2012 which was served to the petitioner on 13.10.2012 and quash the same. 3. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as follows: 3.1. Originally, the fourth respondent was the successful lessee of the shop No.3, Shopping Complex, Tiruparankundram Panchayat, for the period from 2009 to 2012. The fourth respondent entered into a rental agreement with the petitioner on 02.05.2009 for the period of three years and the petitioner took possession of the shop No.3 by regularly paying the rent to the fourth respondent. However, the fourth respondent committed default in paying the rent paid by the petitioner to the third respondent. 3.2. Consequent to the same, an enquiry was conducted and the lease granted in favour of the fourth respondent was cancelled. The petitioner was appointed as a lessee by the third respondent for the above said period, viz., from 01.09.2012 to 31.08.2015 with the monthly rent of Rs.1,650/- (Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty only) by proceedings dated 06.09.2012, subject to payment of earlier rent arrears to the third respondent. After paying the necessary deposit amounts, he approached the third respondent for paying the monthly rent, which was refused and in turn, they permitted the fourth respondent to pay the arrears of rent to the shop allotted to the petitioner. The third respondent insisted the petitioner to vacate the shop and to hand over the same and therefore, he paid the rent through money order and filed W.P (MD)No.13197 of 2012 seeking to forbear the respondents from cancelling the lease given to him. 3.3. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 11.10.2012, has granted an order of interim injunction by taking into consideration the fact that the lease given to the petitioner is valid upto 31.08.2015. Despite the same, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 08.10.2012 cancelling the lease given to the petitioner on 06.09.2012. 3.4. 3.3. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 11.10.2012, has granted an order of interim injunction by taking into consideration the fact that the lease given to the petitioner is valid upto 31.08.2015. Despite the same, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 08.10.2012 cancelling the lease given to the petitioner on 06.09.2012. 3.4. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed W.P(MD)No.13551 of 2012 and this Court also granted an order of interim stay, besides admitted the writ petition, on 17.10.2012. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner on 06.09.2012 has been cancelled by the third respondent without even giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the order impugned came to be passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is contended that the fourth respondent was the original lessee for the period from 2006 to 2009 and subsequently, the period has been extended for another three years from 2009 upto 31.08.2015. Meanwhile, the fourth respondent, on the basis of an unregistered rental agreement, sublet the shop premises to the petitioner, which is in violation of the conditions of lease. Thereafter, the petitioner requested to renew the lease in his name and deposited the amounts for the shop on 06.09.2012 and hence, lease was renewed in the name of the petitioner from 01.09.2012 to 31.08.2015, by proceedings dated 06.09.2012. However, on 08.10.2012, the fourth respondent made a representation to the third respondent seeking to cancel the lease granted in favour of the petitioner for the reason that the fourth respondent is the original lessee and the petitioner is in no way concerned with the shop allotted to him. Taking note of the same, the third respondent cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioner and passed revised orders in favour of the fourth respondent on 08.10.2012. 6. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is the claim of the petitioner that the rental agreement dated 02.05.2009 was entered into between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, based on which, the petitioner claimed that he took possession of the shop in question. On the expiry of the lease, the period has been extended for another three years from 2009 to 2012. 7. It is the claim of the petitioner that the rental agreement dated 02.05.2009 was entered into between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, based on which, the petitioner claimed that he took possession of the shop in question. On the expiry of the lease, the period has been extended for another three years from 2009 to 2012. The third respondent, on enquiry, found that the fourth respondent sublet the shop to the petitioner and hence, the third respondent renewed the lease in favour of the petitioner on the request made by him, by proceedings dated 06.09.2012 and permitted the petitioner to run the shop from 01.09.2012 to 31.08.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the third respondent for paying the rent through challan on 05.10.2012 and it was denied. Subsequently, it was renewed in favour of the fourth respondent and it is also challenged in one of the writ petitions. 8. The fourth respondent has not filed any counter affidavit to the writ petitions, but, a typed set of papers has been filed, wherein it is seen that he produced the copy of the order of cancellation of lease issued in favour of the petitioner on 08.10.2012. It is to be noted that on the very same day, the lease granted in favour of the fourth respondent is extended. According to the fourth respondent, no such rental agreement was entered and he is still continuing in the shop, which is categorically denied by the petitioner. 9. It is the specific case of the petitioner that on the basis of the claims agitated before this Court, an order of interim stay was granted. Even then, the petitioner was evicted forcibly and the shop was handed over to the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the same, he also filed a contempt petition before this Court in Contempt Petition (MD)No.270 of 2013, wherein the first respondent filed the counter affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner and contended as follows: "4. It is humbly submitted that the averments set out in the affidavit are specifically denied as false, save those allegations that are admitted by me to be true. It is humbly submitted that the averments set out in the affidavit are specifically denied as false, save those allegations that are admitted by me to be true. It is submitted that the disputed Shop No.3 was originally allotted in the auction to the 2nd respondent herein namely Velraj for a period of 3 years from 01.02.2006 to 31.01.2009 and subsequently the same was extended for another 3 years from the year 2009-2012 (upto 31.08.2012). On 02.05.2009, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein entered into an unregistered rental agreement among themselves to sub let the said Shop No.3 to the petitioner herein. Both of them have not informed about the sub letting of the panchayat union shop no.3 among themselves. The rental arrears was not paid for the period from October 2010 to September 2012, by the occupants of the shop. The sub letting of the shop without any permission and keeping the arrears of rent for more than 2 years are clear violations of the lease conditions." 10. On a deep scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the authorities concerned abused their powers and acted according to their whims and fancies. Knowing fully well that the petitioner was not the original allottee, an allotment order was issued in his favour. Subsequently, on the claim made by the original allottee, viz., the fourth respondent, the said allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. Immediately, yet another order in favour of the fourth respondent was issued. The act of the third respondent is improper and arbitrary exercise of power. 11. Hence, in the interest of justice, all the allotments made in respect of shop No.3 are set aside. Accordingly, W.P(MD)No.13551 of 2012 is disposed of as above and the third respondent is directed to conduct an 'Open Public Auction' relating to the shop No.3 and allot the same to the highest bidder as per law. It is open to the petitioner and the fourth respondent to participate in the auction which shall be completed by the third respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also open to the third respondent to decide the claim regarding refund of the amounts deposited by the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent taking note of the arrears to be settled. 12. It is also open to the third respondent to decide the claim regarding refund of the amounts deposited by the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent taking note of the arrears to be settled. 12. Insofar as W.P(MD)No.13197 of 2012 is concerned, after filing of the said writ petition, the third respondent passed the order of cancellation which has been set at naught by this Court. Hence, no further orders are necessary in W.P(MD)No.13197 of 2012 and accordingly, the same is closed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs.