Petitioner has no right to make a demand for renewal of lease.

Ms. PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J.

The malady of illegal constructions coming up in brazen violation of all statutory provisions pained the Supreme Court into observing that:

“The experience has been that despite notices which are issued for demolition, wherever excess construction or illegal construction has taken place, no demolition in effect is carried out and the wrongdoers continue to take benefit of their wrongful action by occupying and utilizing the excess areas so constructed. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the municipal authorities all over India are unwilling or unable or incapable of stopping illegal construction and/or demolishing the same. Because no effective action is taken in this regard, the number of violations of the building plans and the building bye-laws and encroachments are increasing in the country, the wrongdoers being emboldened by the fact that the law will not catch up with them.

A suggestion has been mooted that whenever any such illegal construction comes to notice, at first an opportunity should be granted to the wrongdoer to carry out the rectification and demolish the excess construction and in the event of his failing to do so, the illegal construction should automatically, and by operation of law, vest in the State free from all encumbrances and without the State having to pay any compensation in respect thereof. It is only if such a law is passed, which some wrongdoers may consider as draconian, that perhaps the malaise may be contained.”

Vide Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority Vide Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority Vide Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority AIR 2002 SC 2876 : 2003 (10) SCC 445. The building that is the subject matter of these proceedings is a five-storied illegality.

2. The petitioner in W.P. Nos. 8901 of 2004 and 26478 of 2004 is one and the same. The respondent in the former is the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and in the latter, the respondents are the State Government and the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority.

3. In Writ Petition No. 8901 of 2004, the petitioners case is that the vacant land in formerly R.S. No. 1277/12 and now R.S. No. 1277/13 belonging to the Corporation of Chennai, on which he has put up the superstructure bearing Door Nos.326 and 327, Walltax Road, was leased out in perpetuity about 173 years back. In or about the year 1930, there was a superstructure consisting of a ground floor and the first floor. The ownership of the leasehold rights of the land and the superstructure thereon has exchanged several hands and now, it belongs to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, one Ramdayal Prasad originally purchased the leasehold right interest in the land along with the ownership of the building from one Janakiammal. The said Janakiammal informed the Corporation by her letter dated 19.3.1945 that she had alienated the leasehold interest in the property and on that basis, there was mutation of names in the records and registers of the Corporation. Ramdayal Prasad bequeathed the leasehold rights of the property along with the building thereon to his son Ravishankar by a registered Will. In O.P. No. 487 of 1986, probate of the said Will was granted. This was also duly informed to the Corporation and his name was recorded in the place of Ramdayal Sharma. Thereafter, the aforesaid Ravishankar, by a registered sale deed dated 28.10.1992, sold his entire rights in the superstructure and the land to the petitioner. This sale was also informed to the Corporation and the entries in the records have been changed. The building has been assessed to property tax and the same has been paid without default. In the year 2000, when the petitioner remitted the lease amount of rupees one lakh, it was received as payment towards damages and a claim was made for a further sum of Rs. 4,01,2