Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1301 (MAD)

Kumar v. District Collector, Pudukkottai

2015-03-05

A.SELVAM, V.M.VELUMANI

body2015
Judgment A. Selvam, J. 1. This writ appeal has been directed against the order dated 07.01.2009 passed in W.P. (MD) No. 4289 of 2008 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellant herein as petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)No.4289 of 2008 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus so as to call for records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A4/19524/2007 dated 08.04.2008 and quash the same, wherein the present respondents have been shown as respondents. 3. It is averred in the petition that the Shop No.125 in Lorry Market, Pudukkottai has been leased out to one Chellaiah, who is none other than the father of the petitioner and he passed away leaving behind him, the petitioner and others. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to use the same as a legal heir of the lessee. But the second respondent viz., Commissioner, Pudukkottai Municipality has passed the impugned order dated 08.04.2008 whereby it is stated that the leasehold right that existed in favour of the said Chellaiah has been terminated and subsequently fresh auction has been conducted and the shop in question has been leased out to one Ponnaiah, who has been arrayed as fourth respondent herein and under the said circumstances the present writ petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. 4. The learned Single Judge after considering the divergent submissions made on either side, has dismissed the writ petition. Against the dismissal order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been preferred. 5. Even though this writ appeal has been posted today, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the second respondent are not present. Under the said circumstances, this writ appeal is disposed of on merits on the basis of available records. 6. It is an admitted fact that Shop No.125, Lorry Market, Pudukkottai has been leased out to the father of the petitioner by name Chellaiah and he passed away and subsequently the second respondent viz., Commissioner, Pudukkottai Municipality has passed the impugned order dated 08.04.2008 and in order to quash the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. 6. It is an admitted fact that Shop No.125, Lorry Market, Pudukkottai has been leased out to the father of the petitioner by name Chellaiah and he passed away and subsequently the second respondent viz., Commissioner, Pudukkottai Municipality has passed the impugned order dated 08.04.2008 and in order to quash the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. It has been contended on the side of the appellant/petitioner that on the basis of legal heir of previous lessee, the petitioner is entitled to conduct Shop No.125. 8. In fact this Court has perused the impugned order dated 08.04.2008, wherein it has been explicitly stated that the earlier lessee viz., Chellaiah has failed to pay monthly rent and his leasehold right has been cancelled by way of passing Resolution dated 31.01.2006 and subsequently the same has been leased out to the fourth respondent viz., Ponnaiah. 9. Considering the fact that the father of the petitioner has failed to pay monthly rent to the second respondent, the second respondent is having unfettered right to cancel the alleged leasehold right of the said Chellaiah. Since the alleged leasehold right of the said Chellaiah has already been cancelled by way of passing the Resolution dated 31.01.2006, it is needless to say that the petitioner has no locus standi to claim the right mentioned in the petition on the basis of heir of the previous lessee viz., Chellaiah. 10. The learned Single Judge after considering the nature of claim made on the side of the appellant/petitioner and also nature of the order passed by the second respondent has rightly dismissed the writ petition. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any merit in the writ appeal and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed. 11. In fine, this writ appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.