Ratios:
a. Show cause notice by Corporation should clearly specify the exact condition of the building and steps to be taken by its owner.
b. Owner of a building is entitled for a reasonable time to submit his reply and after the passing of order, to prefer appeal. Corporation should not take any action for demolition atleast till the appeal period is over.

M. Duraiswamy, J.

The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order of Mr.Justice K.Raviraja Pandian dated 23.08.2005 made in WPMP No.29436 of 2005 W.P.No.27005 of 2005.

2. The petitioners in the writ petition filed writ petition for issuance of a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in Order No.16 dated 25.07.2005 and to quash the same and consequently forbear the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's right to build shops at Nos.67 and 68 Kalathiappa Mudali Street, Choolai, Chennai 600 112.

3. The second respondent in the writ petition is the appellant herein. The petitioners in the writ petition are respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1, 3 to 7 in the writ petitions are respondents 3 to 8 herein.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, by consent of both the learned counsel, the writ petition is taken up for hearing along with writ appeal.

5. The case of the petitioners in the writ petition is that they are lessees of the land situated at D.Nos.67 and 68 Kalathiappa Mudali Street, Choolai, Chennai 600 112 under the Corporation of Chennai on an annual rent of Rs.9,400/-. According to the petitioners, the superstructure in the said land belonged to one Sabapthy Chettiar. In respect of this property, the vacant land was leased to Sabapathy Chettiar by the Municipal Commissioner, Madras on 17.10.1881 under a lease deed registered as Document No.2165 of 1881. The period of lease of the land was for 50 years which expired on 11.09.1931. However, even after that date, the tenency continued and the such continues and subsists even now. As per the terms and conditions of the lease, Sabapathy Chettiar was permitted to put up a Baazar consisting of 21 shops in the vacant land. Later from the said Sabapathy Chettiar, T.Rathnevelu Chetty grand-father of the petitioners, purchased the building along with the lease-hold rights in the year 1919. Consequently, he became the lessee under the Corporation by virtue of the said purchase from Sabapathy Chettiar. Subsequently, after Rethnevel Chetty's life time, the father of the petitioners, R.Sivagnanam became the lessee. By virtue of the Will dated 26.9.1936, in favour of the petitioners in the writ petition, they are entitled to the superstructure in D.Nos.67 and 68 Kalathiappa Mudali Street, Choolai, Chennai 600 112 together with lease-hold rights of the vacant land. That, all on a sudden the second respondent had issued a notice dated 25.07.2005 under section 258 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act 1919, which was served on 30.07.2005. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioners issued telegrams to all the respondents besides to other higher authorities on 31.07.2005. In spite of their protest, the second respondent went ahead with its plan to demolish the superstructure. The second respondent demolished the superstructure on 1.8.2005 without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to file any appeal against the order dated 25.7.2005 under section 366 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act. Hence, the petitioners filed the writ petition.

6. Along with the writ petition, they have also filed an application in WPMP No.29436 of 2005 for interim injunction, restraining the respondents, from fencing the land or putting up any superstructure of any kind over the lease-hold land of the petitioners situate at Nos.67 and 68 Kalathiappa Mudali Street, Choolai, Chennai 600 112 (comprised in Re-survey No.1039) measuring an extent of 1 Ground and 1326 sq.ft., till the disposal of the writ petition.

7. The learned single Judge, after hearing both sides, granted interim injunction on 23.8.2005.

8. Aggrieved over the order of the learned single Judge, the second respondent has preferred the above writ appeal.

9. Heard both sides.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the notice issued under section 258 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act 1919, dated 25.07.2005 is just and proper. The learned