Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1710 (MAD)

V. Mahalingam v. Principal District Judge

2021-06-09

S.ANANTHI, T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2021
JUDGMENT : T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. With the consent on either side, this Writ Appeal is taken up for final disposal. In the light of the orders we propose to pass in the Writ Appeal, notice to the respondents 3 to 8 is dispensed with. 2. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 24.01.2018 passed in W.P.(MD).No.16063 of 2017. 3. The appellant, who was a practising Advocate in the District Court, Madurai and who is now no more, sought for quashing the order passed by the first respondent, dated 12.07.2017, cancelling the allotment of the Chamber in the District Court Complex in Chamber No.19. The Writ Petition has been dismissed by the impugned order and it appears that there was a huge arrears of rent payable by the deceased appellant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that during the pendency of this appeal, the arrears of rent have been paid. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not have any instructions. 5. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Tamil Mani, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 6. Be that as it may, since the appellant is no more, it is not necessary to test the correctness of the impugned order. However, we can observe that if there is arrears of rent payable for the Chamber, then, it goes without saying that the competent Authority is entitled to take action for cancellation of the allotment and calling upon the allottee to vacate the Chamber and if the allottee does not vacate, action can be initiated for eviction. In the instant case, the appellant has been vacated from the Chamber and we are informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that some other learned Advocate has been allotted as a co-allottee in the said Chamber and he is an occupant since 2017. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the son of the appellant is also an Advocate, who is practising in the District Court, Madurai and he is desirous of seeking allotment in the same Chamber and some of the co-allottees are willing to recommend his application. The son of the appellant cannot seek for substitution of his name in the place of his father whose allottment has already been cancelled. The son of the appellant cannot seek for substitution of his name in the place of his father whose allottment has already been cancelled. The son of the appellant being an independent legal practitioner, has to make an application in accordance with the Guidelines/Rules duly recommended by the main allottees/co-allottees, which will be considered in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, while confirming the order passed in the Writ Petition, we give liberty to the appellant's son to make an application in accordance with the Rules, which shall be considered by the respondents. 8. The Writ Appeal stands dismissed with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.