Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 47 (MAD)

P. Ramanathan v. Estate Officer, SIDCO

2016-01-05

M.DURAISWAMY

body2016
ORDER : M. Duraiswamy, J. 1. Since the issues involved in the Writ Petition and the Civil Revision Petition are common, both the matters are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The Writ Petition in W.P. No. 14426 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner to issue writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st and 2nd respondents in proceeding of allotment on out right sale basis to the 3rd respondent subject to conditions through their proceedings dated 05.11.2003, Memo of handing over permission dated 17.11.2003, handing over the charge through letter dated 19.11.2003 etc. of the land with its dimension and area mentioned in these proceedings and work shed size 30ft x 40ft situated at Plot No. 20, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ranipet, Vellore District and quash the same and direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to restore possession of the entire land and building along with two other buildings in this land mentioned in the said petitioner's letters sent to the 1st and 2nd respondents and hand over the same back to the petitioner herein and to execute and register a proper Sale Deed of this land and three buildings in favour of the petitioner since the petitioner has paid the total sale consideration and to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to remit the petitioner's excess payment of Rs. 18,745.55 with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 3. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD). No. 894 of 2005 arises against the judgment and decree passed in Public Premises C.M.A. No. 1 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore, confirming the order dated 14.02.1992 passed by the 1st respondent in Ref. No. 802/C/83. 4. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of both the matters are as follows: "(i) On 14.05.1979, the shed bearing No. 20 at SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ranipet, Vellore was allotted to the petitioner by the 1st respondent. In Clause - 3 of the order, the tentative cost of the land and building was fixed at Rs. 1,18,052/- and it was intimated to the petitioner that the final cost will be intimated in due course. Further, it was clarified that he will be liable to pay the final cost to be fixed by the SIDCO. In Clause - 3 of the order, the tentative cost of the land and building was fixed at Rs. 1,18,052/- and it was intimated to the petitioner that the final cost will be intimated in due course. Further, it was clarified that he will be liable to pay the final cost to be fixed by the SIDCO. (ii) In Clause - 6 of the order, it has been stated that the cost of the land and building will have to be repaid in 60 half yearly installments after a moratorium period of two years with 13.5% interest per annum or at the rate of interest to be fixed from time to time. In Clause - 7, it has been stated that the interim interest for the moratorium period, which comes to Rs. 23,905.53 have to be repaid in 3 half yearly installments, commencing from 6th month from the date of the order. In Clause - 8, it has been stated that if the work shed is not put into use within twelve months from the date of order, SIDCO reserved its right to vacate the petitioner after collecting the necessary economic rent for the period of occupation. (iii) On 16.08.1986, since the petitioner was not making the payments regularly as per the repayment schedule, the respondent issued show cause notice. Subsequently, by order dated 20.07.1988, the respondent terminated the allotment made in favour of the petitioner since he had violated the terms and conditions of the allotment. Further, the petitioner was requested to hand over the shed to the Branch Manager, Vellore within thirty days from the date of receipt of the letter and it was made clear that on failure to hand over possession, the plot will be resumed by the Estate Officer, Industrial Estate, Vellore under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act. The respondent also informed the petitioner that they are taking appropriate action for the collection of dues in respect of the shed. (iv) Challenging the termination order, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 4465 of 1989 and this Court, by order dated 29.03.1989, dismissed the Writ Petition stating that the petitioner has got a right of appeal before the Civil Court. Pursuant to the cancellation of allotment, the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act was initiated on 28.12.1988. Accordingly, Form-A notice was issued. Pursuant to the cancellation of allotment, the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act was initiated on 28.12.1988. Accordingly, Form-A notice was issued. On 09.02.1989, Form-B notice was issued under the Act. On 30.03.1990, eviction order was passed under the Act. Admittedly, the order passed in the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 4465 of 1989 has become final. The petitioner filed an appeal in C.M.A. No. 1 of 1990 on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore challenging the order dated 30.03.1990 passed by the 1st respondent Estate Officer. Subsequently, on 24.10.1991, the appeal in C.M.A. No. 1 of 1990 was allowed and remanded to the Estate Officer for fresh enquiry. Pursuant to the order passed in C.M.A. No. 1 of 1990, the 1st respondent Estate Officer conducted re-enquiry and passed an order of eviction on 14.02.1992. (v) Challenging the order dated 14.02.1992 passed by the Estate Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 1 of 1992. The District Court dismissed the appeal on 13.09.2002 and the order passed by the Estate Officer was confirmed. After the dismissal of the appeal in C.M.A. No. 1 of 1992, the 1st respondent took possession of the shed on 31.12.2002. Subsequently, on 05.11.2003, the shed was re-allotted to the 3rd respondent for a consideration of Rs. 16,44,600/-. On 17.11.2003, the shed was handed over to the 3rd respondent after collecting the shed costs. Challenging the order passed in C.M.A. No. 1 of 1992 dated 13.09.2002, the petitioner preferred a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 1277 of 2003 and this Court set aside the judgment passed in C.M.A. No. 1 of 1992 and remanded the matter back to the District Court, Vellore for fresh disposal. After remand, the District Court conducted fresh enquiry and again dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 03.09.2004. Therefore, by judgment dated 03.09.2004, the order of eviction passed by the 1st respondent Estate Officer dated 14.02.1992 was confirmed." 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that pursuant to the re-allotment in favour of the 3rd respondent, they erected machinery and commenced the production in February 2005. Challenging the order passed in C.M.A. No. 1 of 1992 dated 03.09.2004, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD). No. 894 of 2005. In the said Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Petitions in C.M.P. Nos. Challenging the order passed in C.M.A. No. 1 of 1992 dated 03.09.2004, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD). No. 894 of 2005. In the said Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Petitions in C.M.P. Nos. 9207 & 9208 of 2006 to restore the possession of the shed and for handing over the shed to him. Those petitions were dismissed by this Court on 18.08.2006. 6. Challenging the re-allotment of the shed in favour of the 3rd respondent dated 05.11.2003, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition in W.P. No. 14426 of 2008 in November 2007. 7. The main contention raised by the petitioner, who appeared in person, is that the Lower Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the documents at the time of deciding the appeal. On a perusal of the judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court, it could be seen that the petitioner filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code and the said application was taken into consideration by the Lower Appellate Court and since the documents sought to be produced before the Lower Appellate Court were not relevant for the disposal of the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court had rejected the application. Further, the petitioner has not stated any reason before the Lower Appellate Court for not producing the document at the earliest point of time. The Lower Appellate Court, while dismissing the application, observed that the petitioner has not established that in spite of due diligence, he was unable to produce the document. When the petitioner has not given any reason for not producing the document in spite of due diligence at the earliest point of time, the dismissal of the application by the Lower Appellate Court is perfectly correct. 8. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that no amount has been paid by the petitioner out of his pocket, whereas, he obtained loan and paid the amount to the 1st respondent. Further, the petitioner also rented out the building to one M/s. Murugappa Morgan Ceramic Limited and paid the amount only from the rent received from the building. Since he defaulted in paying the amount as agreed by him, the allotment made in his favour was cancelled. Once, his allotment was cancelled, his possession can be construed as an unauthorised occupant. Though the outstanding amount was Rs. Since he defaulted in paying the amount as agreed by him, the allotment made in his favour was cancelled. Once, his allotment was cancelled, his possession can be construed as an unauthorised occupant. Though the outstanding amount was Rs. 2,68,987/-, the petitioner paid only 20 installments from September 1989 to 1991 through M/s. Nettur Technical Training Foundation (NTTF). In the absence of any evidence being produced before the Lower Appellate Court, the Lower Appellate Court had rightly rejected the contention of the petitioner that he paid the entire amount within the stipulated time. 9. In spite of the notice issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has not paid the amount. The order of eviction was passed only after issuing show cause notice. In the absence of any evidence to show that the interest and the moratorium interest have been waived by the respondent, the Lower Appellate Court has rightly disbelieved the case of the petitioner. Since the documents were not produced in accordance with law, the Lower Appellate Court rightly rejected the documents. When the petitioner had agreed to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner should have honoured the agreement and paid the installment amounts within the time stipulated by the 1st respondent. Since the petitioner had not paid the entire amount, the allotment made in his favour was cancelled. Even before the Estate Officer no document was produced by the petitioner. In spite of the same, the Estate Officer took into consideration the documents and discussed the relevant documents and passed the order on merits. Since the Estate Officer had decided all the issued on merits and in accordance with law, the Lower Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeal. 10. The petition filed by the petitioner before the Lower Appellate Court for return of the movables in the building are concerned, the Lower Appellate Court has rightly rejected the petition stating that the premises was leased out to M/s. Murugappa Morgan Ceramic Limited, therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the movables belonging to him were inside the premises. The Lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not kept any articles in the suit premises. Hence, he is not entitled to the return of articles. In these circumstances, I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the District Court, Vellore. 11. The Lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not kept any articles in the suit premises. Hence, he is not entitled to the return of articles. In these circumstances, I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the District Court, Vellore. 11. Since, it is found that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant since he defaulted in paying the monthly installments to the 1st respondent and the allotment made in his favour was terminated by order dated 20.07.1988 and possession was also taken on 31.12.2002, after the dismissal of the C.M.A. No. 1 of 1992, the re-allotment of the shed in favour of the 3rd respondent by the 1st respondent cannot be said to be illegal. Legally, the 1st respondent, after cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and after taking possession of the shed from the petitioner, is correct in allotting the shed in favour of the 3rd respondent for a valuable consideration. That apart, the termination order dated 20.07.1988 was also challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 4465 of 1989 and the same was also dismissed by this Court on 29.03.1989. The order passed in the said Writ Petition has become final. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition. 12. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition and the Civil Revision Petition are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.