Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2858
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Saraswathi Kailasam and Others – Petitioners
Vs.
Madras Race Club, Rep. by its Secretary, Guindy, Chennai – Respondent
CRP(NPD)Nos.1204 and 1205 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011
Decided On : 05-07-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.Valliappan
For the Respondent: Mr. AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior counsel for M/s.L.Dhamodaran
Headnote:
Madras Race Club (Acquisition and Transfer undertaken) Act 1985 - Madras Race Club (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act 1986 - Tenant - Management of Club - Acquisition – Challenged - Government of Tamil Nadu by virtue of a legislation by Act No.viz. Madras Race Club (Acquisition and Transfer undertaken) Act 1985 took over Management of Club on onwards - By virtue of Act all properties including lease hold right of petitioner club vested with Government - Tenant club that at time of handing over of management custodian who was in charge from did not hand over files or inform Management committee of tenant Club about pendency of Rent Control proceedings said to have been initiated by landlords against tenant Club - Counsel engaged by custodian who was prosecuting legal disputes of the Race Coub also did not intimate details of cases filed against club and the status and factual position of cases, which were filed against tenant club - It is further case of the tenant that one and 7 others claimed to have purchased property were filed M.P.No. in unnumbered E.P. on file of the XVIth Judge, Small Causes Court, seeking permission to execute decree of eviction said to have been passed in RCOP.No. which actually took place at time when Race club was vested with Government and administered by custodian appointed by Government – Held, Court excepts parties to be vigilant and sensitive on proceedings of Court and when case was in part heard stage, it is duty of the parties to follow conduct of case and contact their Advocate also to know about stage of case - But, Defendants have failed to follow proceedings because of their lethargic attitude. It is well settled principle that length of delay is not material, but whether delay has been sufficiently explained has to be looked into - Honble Supreme Court and reasons assigned by Tenant Club for huge delay on 2630 days, tenant club has not given any valid reasons except above management taken over by Government of Tamil Nadu and later on handing over management in year and till they have no knowledge about the litigation pending between tenant club and landlords, which is totally unacceptable one - Learned Judge accepting reason given by petitioner/tenant that they have no knowledge about litigation pending between tenant club and landlords, which is not at all satisfactory one - Therefore, this Court find that there is irregularity and illegality in said order in M.P.Nos. and this Court warranting necessity in interference in said orders. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be allowed by setting aside order passed - Both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed
The respondents/respondents/landlords are the civil revision petitioners before this Court, challenging the common order passed in M.P.Nos.294 and 295 of 2007 in RCA.No.80 of 1994, dated 29.01.2011, on the file of the VIIIth Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. It is the case of the respondent/petitioner/tenant (herein after called tenant) Madras Race Club that they are the tenant under these petitioners/landlords (herein after called landlords).
3. Originally the tenant Madras Race Club was managed by the club. In the year 1986, the Government of Tamil Nadu by virtue of a legislation by Act No.26 of 1986 viz. the Madras Race Club (Acquisition and Transfer undertaken) Act 1985 took over the Management of Club on 19.04.1986 onwards. By virtue of the Act all the properties including lease hold right of the petitioner club vested with the Government. The Government of Tamil Nadu has appointed a custodian to administer the Madras Race Club.
4. Thereafter, the tenant Madras Race Club challenging the Act No.26 of 1986 before this Court and thereafter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to declare the acquisition of Madras Race Club vide Madras Race Club (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act 1986 is ultra virus to the Constitution of India and directed the Government of Tamilnadu to hand over the management of the functioning of the club to a duly constituted Management Committee under the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the petitioner Club. Pursuant to the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Management of the Madras Race Club reverting back to the present management during 1997.
5. It is the further case of the tenant club that at the time of handing over of the management the custodian who was in charge from 1986 to 1996, did not hand over the files or inform the Management committee of the tenant Club about the pendency of the Rent Control proceedings said to have been initiated by the landlords against the tenant Club. The counsel engaged by the custodian who was prosecuting the legal disputes of the Race Coub also did not intimate the details of cases filed against the club and the status and factual position of the cases, which were filed against the tenant club. Even though the tenant club reverted back to the present management, the present management is unaware of the litigations. It is the further case of the tenant that one Mr.Kalid A.K.Bukari and 7 others claimed to have purchased the property were filed M.P.No.69 of 2000 in unnumbered E.P. on the file of the XVIth Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, seeking permission to execute the decree of eviction said to have been passed in RCOP.No.2192 of 1987, which actually took place at the time when the Race club was vested with the Government and administered by the custodian appointed by the Government.
6. On receipt of the notice, the tenant club has entered appearance through previous counsel in the execution proceedings, which was later numbered as E.P.No.504 of 2000 and the said execution proceedings, the tenant club has strongly contested the alleged assignment claimed by the 3rd parties to execute the decree in RCOP.No.2192 of 1987.
7. It is the further case of the tenant is that the previous counsel engaged by the tenant club did not guide them in a proper manner and only defended the execution proceedings. Therefore, the tenant club has engaged their present counsel and only thereafter the present counsel after going through the records informed them about the filing of the RCOP.No.2192 of 1987 by the landlords for eviction and the rent control appeal filed against it by the custodian bearing number in RCA.No.123 of 1994 on behalf of the tenant club, which came to be dismissed for default on 20.03.1997 for non compliance to carrying out the amendment in RCA.No.123 of 1994. Pursuant to the orders to implead the 3rd party purchasers, it is also stated by the tenant that the present management of the te
