Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K.B.K. VASUKI
G. Kumarappan
Versus
The Commissioner, Alandur Municipality, Chennai
W.P. No. 25660 of 2009
Decided On : 13-08-2010
lease - possession - electricity connection - rent - [Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 - Section 105, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 107, Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 56] - The court discussed the possession of the leased property, the responsibility for obtaining electricity connection, and the liability to pay rent, highlighting the legal provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 - Section 105, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 107, and Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 56, and how they influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over possession, electricity connection, and rent payment for a leased commercial property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the possession of the property was deemed to be handed over to the petitioner in January 2009, and the liability to pay rent arose from that date. The impugned notice claiming rent from June 2008 was set aside, and the respondent was directed to execute the lease deed in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: Dispute over possession date, responsibility for obtaining electricity connection, and liability to pay rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The possession of the property and the liability to pay rent were determined based on the agreed terms and the actions of the parties, as per the legal provisions.
Final Decision: The impugned notice was set aside, and the respondent was directed to execute the lease deed in favor of the petitioner.
1. On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. The writ petition is filed to quash the order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.2611/2008/A1 dated 25.09.2009 and to direct the respondent to execute the agreement in favour of the petitioner for the premises i.e. Commercial Complex – II Floor, Near G.S.T. Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.
3. The respondent herein is by notification dated 10.01.2008 notified the building belonging to the Municipality for grant of lease and the petitioner participated in the auction held on 15.02.2008 and he having offered the highest bid was declared as the successful bidder in respect of the building measuring 4532 sq.ft. in second floor of the commercial complex, near GST Road, Alandur, Chennai.
4. The dispute arises before this Court is as to the date on which the petitioner is put in possession of the property and the date from which he is due to pay rent to the premises taken on lease. The petition mentioned building consisting of basement, ground floor, plus two floors. The petitioner was given the lease in respect of the second floor. The lease in respect of the remaining portion that is basement, ground floor and first floor are already given in favour of third party. After the declaration of bid in respect of the second floor in his favour the petitioner deposited on 02.05.2008 nine months rent as advance and a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards caution deposit for obtaining the electricity connection. However the vacant possession of the building was not admittedly handed over to the petitioner immediately thereafter.
5. It is not in dispute that at the time of allotting the second floor on lease to the petitioner, the portion was under lock and seal of East West Airlines and the goods belonging to the East West airlines were dumped in the second floor portion. The respondent has also brought for auction the right to remove the goods and the same was sanctioned in favour of one Sundar and he remitted the deposit amount for such right sanctioned to him on 02.05.2008.
6. In this regard one of the documents produced herein is the letter given by the said Sundar with regard to the period during which the goods are removed from the portion in question. Those two letters are dated 02.05.2008 and 29.07.2008. Though the same are said to be the letters intimating the respondent about the removal of goods and asking for refund of the caution deposit of Rs.50,000/-, both the letters do not mention the date on which the goods of East West Airlines are removed from the second floor portion. If that is so the respondent would not have been able to hand over the buildings to the petitioner either during March or June as contended herein. As a matter of fact the respondent is not definite about the date on which the possession is handed over to the petitioner. The respondent has mentioned different dates at different stage. The respondent has no definite case as to whether it is during March or June. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent has in the course of argument fairly conceded that the possession was handed over during June 2008 on the basis of the letter dated 02.06.2008 purported to be given by the Assistant Revenue Officer, but the same is seriously objected to on the side of the petitioner. This Court is also not inclined to rely on the same in support of the respondents case for the simple reason that the same containing no endorsement of the petitioner for having taken over possession of the building on 02.06.2008.
7. Be that as may be the building in question is admittedly taken on lease for commercial purpose. The contention raised on the side of the petitioner that the lease was granted to him at the highest rate than the allottees of other portions i.e. at the rate of Rs.22.50 paise per sq.ft. for 4532 sq.ft. per month is not denied on the side of the respondent. The lease agreement is also till date, not executed in favour of the petitioner. It is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
