K.CHANDRU
Balasubramaniam & Others – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai & Others – Respondent
Heard both sides.
2. The petitioners, who are claiming to have their shops inside the Victoria Public Hall compound (for short VP Hall) and were claiming to pay licence fees to the VP Hall Trust Board, have challenged two notices issued by the Corporation of Chennai. The first notice was issued by the Corporation, dated 8. 2009. The said notice directed the occupants/licensees to vacate their respective premises within seven days and hand over vacant possession to the Corporation, failing which appropriate legal action will be taken against them.
3. The reason given by the respondent Corporation in the impugned notice was that the Victoria Public Hall Trust Board on 13. 2009 passed a resolution to hand over to the Corporation its movable and immovable properties. The petitioners without any valid lease or licence are running their shops in the place leased out to the Victora Public Hall. In view of the resolution, there was no right for the petitioners to carry on their business there. It was also stated that the Victoria Public Hall Trust Board itself was a lessee under the Corporation of Chennai. They have no right either to lease or rent out the premises under the ter
1. Anamallai Club v. Govt. of T.N. (1997) 3 SCC 169
3. A.Thayal Nayagi Vs. Union of India owning Southern Railway represented by its General Manager
4. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia and another 2008 (3) SCC 279
5. Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (1989) 3 SCC 293
6. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank (1990) 4 SCC 406
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.