2011 Supreme(Mad) 3936
2011 (4) LW 633
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. BANUMATHI & B. RAJENDRAN
Rajendra Gupta & Others
Versus
The Corporation of Chennai, rep. by its Commissioner & Others
O.S.A.Nos.100, 101, 105 & 106 of 2011
Decided on : 15-09-2011
For the Appellants:T.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for Satish Parasaran, S.R. Rajagopal, R. Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for V. Ramajagadeesan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:N.R. Chandran, Senior Counsel for G.T. Subramaniam, Advocate.
R. BANUMATHI,J
1. Whether the person who is personally benefited by commercially exploiting public property can maintain applications in the Scheme suit and whether the sub-lessee who continues in possession even after the expiry of the period of original lease can seek to protect his possession are the points falling for consideration in these appeals.
2. Prime property in Poonamallee High Road to an extent of 57 grounds was leased to the Trustees of Victoria Public Hall [V.P. Hall] Trust for construction of Town Hall which is to be used for public purposes or private purposes of cultural and educational activities. Prime property worth several crores so leased for a noble cause was diverted to personal benefit of making the profit. It is the typical case that exploitation of the public property by putting up multi-storied buildings with palatial facade for running hotel business for personal aggrandisement. Appellants whose claim of sublease expired even on 30.04.1985 seeks to protect their possession even after the surrender of leasehold rights by the original lessee - V.P. Hall Trust. It is the typical case where public property has been siphoned off under the cover of documents and protective umbrella of the Court orders. After the land and buildings were handed over by V.P. Hall Trust [original lessee] to the Corporation [original owner] and after recording of compromise, can Appellants seek to retain the leasehold rights beyond the period of original lease of the original lessee themselves is the core point in issue.
3. Factual background of the matter:- In 1880's certain senior noted citizens decided to establish Town Hall in Madras for the use and benefit of the public. For the said purpose, several citizens of Madras contributed various amounts and influential Committee of the citizens of Madras was constituted to carry out the project of construction of a Town Hall. As a result of negotiations Committee with the Municipal Commissioner for the Town of Madras, Corporation passed resolutions dated 21.2.1883, 03.09.1884 and 24.09.1885 allotting the land of an extent of about 57 grounds on a 99 year lease, on a rent of 8 annas per ground per annum. Allotment was infavour of the Committee for construction of a Town Hall.
4. Deed of Trust was drawn up by an indenture entered into on 18.02.1888 to which (i) Subscribers to the building fund of Town Hall were parties of the first part; (ii) Committee of persons constituted to carry out project of construction of a Town Hall were parties of the second part; (iii) Original body of 12 Trustees constituted to handle the subscriptions were included as parties of the third part. On the said date i.e. 18.02.1888, there was lease agreement between the Municipal Commissioner of City of Madras and the Trustees of the Town Hall under which 57 grounds was leased to the Trustees on a lease of 99 years at a rent of 8 annas per ground per annum renewable at the end of each term of 99 years. Lease agreement stipulates for payment of rent, strict compliance of terms with condition to re-enter possession on non-compliance of certain terms. It was resolved under the said Deed of Trust that (i) Town Hall to be constructed which shall be named "Victoria Public Hall" and that the Hall to be used only for the purposes specified in the Deed of Trust; (ii) Declaration that the Trustees will hold the properties and constitution and administration of the Committee of Trustees. In 1889, the Rajah of Vizianagaram advanced a huge sum of money on a mortgage over the Victoria Public Hall on condition that if he was vested with nominating powers, he would forego the entire mortgage debt due to him. Therefore, the then Advocate-General of Madras filed suit in C.S.No.223 of 1905 seeking leave to amend the Deed of Trust so as to provide for appointment of 13th Trustee by Rajah Sahib of Vizianagaram and his successors. By the judgment and decree dated 09.01.1906, the Court modified the Deed of Trust by