ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 16.4.2001 on the file of the Presiding Officer, XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai-104, in M.P.Nos.47 and 48 of 2001 in E.P.No.554 of 2000.

2. According to the petitioner she is the Managing Director of the petitioner company incorporated as a Private Limited Company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 during August, 1996. The petitioner took up the business run by Thiru S.S.Pandian and there are four Board of Directors in the company. After the incorporation of the company, the company was looking after the affairs of the business. The building bearing door Nos.31 and 32. Namachivaya Chetty Street, Chennai-21, was rented out to the said S.S.Pandian. After the company took over the business, the owner, the fourth respondent attorned the tenancy in favour of the petitioner/company. The petitioner/company thereafter paid the rental amounts by way of cheques and the landlord used to realise the cheque amounts through the bankers. On 8.1.2001, the petitioner company was threatened to vacate the said premises on the ground that the landlord had obtained an order of eviction against S.S.Pandian as confirmed by the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner company has been paying the monthly rent till the month of November, 2000 which has been credited in the account of the landlord. On 10.1.2001 when the petitioner company sent the cheque, the same was returned. Apprehending the forcible eviction, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.237 of 2001 before the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, to establish their rights, and the same was still pending. While so, the landlord brought the Court bailiff to the premises. The petitioner Company informed him that they were in possession and enjoyment as a tenant attorned by the fourth respondent. Thereafter, the landlord filed an application in M.P.Nos.47 and 48 of 2001 in E.P.No.554 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras for removal of obstruction under O.21, Rule 97, C.P.C. stating that the petitioner company was an obstructor. The petitioner filed a detailed counter stating that the petitioner was not an obstructor, but a tenant under the fourth respondent herein, for which there was sufficient evidence. The landlord did not adduce any contra evidence. The petitioner further states that from the beginning of the proceedings, the second respondent was expressing that the petitioner company was only an obstructor and there was no merit in their case. However, the petitioner’s counsel insisted on oral evidence being taken and also to mark all the documents to show that the petitioner had obtained proper licence from the Corporation of Madras, Police Department and from other officials to show that it was the petitioner company which was paying the rent and was also received by the landlord. On 27.3.2001 the case was posted for chief examination of R.W.3 and was adjourned to 29.3.2001. On 29.3.2001, the petitioner partly examined R.W.3 and requested for time to mark the documents including the licences which have been sent to the authorities for renewal as the period was ending on 31.3.2001 and requested the second respondent to adjourn the case on 3.4.2001. But the second respondent insisted that the petitioner’s counsel should put all the questions to the witness on 29.3.2001 itself and could mark all the documents on the next day. Though his counsel pleaded that he was required to appear before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in respect of another case, the second respondent posted the case on 30.3.2001. On 30.3.2001, the counsel filed a petition for adjournment through his colleague, but the second respondent refused to receive the same and closed the evidence. The petitioner thereupon filed a petition to reopen on 2.4.2001 which was allowed on 3.4.2001 and the petitioner completed the cross examination of R.W.3. They h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document