Direction given for payment of exemplary cost for misleading the court.

1. With consent of the learned counsel on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the above Writ Petition, are set out below:

(i) The petitioner's father was a tenant under the vendor of the second respondent in respect of a non-residential premises bearing door No. 24/9, Subramaniyar Kovi Street, Bodinayakanur town on a monthly rent of Rs.150 wherein a printing press is being run. The second respondent's vendor demanded the petitioner's father to vacate the rented premises and the petitioner's father filed R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate), Bodinayakanur under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 against the second respondent's vendor and pending the said Petition, he died on 8.1.2003 and the petitioner was brought on record as his LR. The said Petition was allowed by an order dated 12.7.2004 and the petitioner is depositing the monthly rents. While so, the petitioner's landlords sold the rented premises to the second respondent by a registered sale deed dated 16.9.2004 and the second respondent immediately requested the petitioner to vacate the premises.

(ii) While matters stood like that, the second respondent, according to the petitioner, approached the first respondent to initiate action under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the second respondent has issued impugned proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 1/2232/05 dated 30.9.2005 calling upon the second respondent to demolish the building and to remove the debris alleging that the building appears to be of 150 years old and the roof is in a damaged condition and it may create danger to the devotees and the general public visiting the temple and the impugned order is said to be issued under Section 218 of the Act and a copy of the order was sent to the petitioner also. In the impugned order, it is stated that a notice dated 31.3.2005 is said to have been issued. But, according to the petitioner, no such notice was served on him.

3. The above Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order on the following grounds, namely:

(a) The impugned order suffers from colourable exercise of power;

(b) If the first respondent found any portion of the building in a ruinous state, he should have directed repairing of the structure or fencing of the building or to do fitness to prevent danger in compliance of Section 128 (1) and (2) of the Act; and

(c) The impugned order passed by the first respondent requiring the petitioner to demolish the building without any spot inspection or on a report of an expert is illegal.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. In the counter affidavit, in paragraph 2, it is stated as follows:

“2. On 19.1.2005 ‘Thirukoil Baktharkal Peravai', Bodinayakanur submitted a petition to this respondent stating that the above said building was constructed 150 years back and the same is in a dilapidated condition and it will cause danger to the Public visiting to the temple and hence it is just necessary to demolish the building. Based on the representation this respondent along with the Municipal Engineer inspected the building. During the inspection this respondent and the Engineer was able to see that the building is in a bad condition and it requires immediate demolition. Hence this respondent issued notice under Section 218 of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 to the 2nd respondent herein who are the owners of the premises on 31.3.2005".

5. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that on verification, the first respondent came to know that the building is aged about more than 90 years and that the first respondent passed the impugned order based on the representation made by the ‘Thirukoil Baktharkal Peravai'. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that it is incor