Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, JJ.
Selva Rajendran @ Selvam - Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director, Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Koyambedu, Chennai & Another - Respondent
W.P. No. 1937 of 2018
Decided On : 16-03-2018
For the Petitioner:V. Prakash, Senior Counsel for M/s. M. Kamalanathan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Jayesh Dolia, Syed Mustafa, A.S. Bharathi, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement of publishing the notification in the Central Government Gazette under Section 21(1) of the Metro Railways (Construction and works) Act does not apply when the acquisition is carried out by the State Government.
Headnote:
Eviction - Metro Rail Construction Act - Section 21(1) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Metro Railways (Construction and works) Act, Section 21 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 21(1) of the Metro Railways (Construction and works) Act, which requires the publication of notification in the Central Government Official Gazette and the provision of alternative accommodation or cost for accommodation to the person being evicted. The court analyzed the legal validity of the impugned eviction notice in light of these provisions and the acquisition process carried out by the State Government.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, sought to quash an eviction notice issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 21 of the Metro Railways (Construction and works) Act. The petitioner's premises were acquired for the Chennai Metro Rail Station, and the petitioner contested the legal validity of the eviction notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition of the subject land was carried out by the State Government, and the notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. The court held that the requirement of publishing the notification in the Central Government Gazette under Section 21 of the Act did not apply in this case. The court also noted that the petitioner, being a tenant, could not have a better right than the landlord, who had entered into an agreement with CMRL for temporary use of the land.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned eviction notice under Section 21(1) of the Metro Railways (Construction and works) Act was legally valid, considering the acquisition process carried out by the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the requirement of publishing the notification in the Central Government Gazette did not apply in this case, as the acquisition was carried out by the State Government. The court also considered the landlord's agreement with CMRL for temporary use of the land, which undermined the petitioner's claim.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was granted time until 28.03.2018 to vacate the premises.
R. Subbiah, J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the eviction notice issued by the 2nd respondent vide Letter Rc.52/82/LND/CMRL, dated 19.01.2018.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner, which are necessary to dispose of this writ petition, are as follows-
2.1. Originally one Mohamed Nynar was running an ice factory at Door No.3, T.H.Road, New Washermanpet, Chennai-600 081 under the name and style of 3 Acres Ice Factory and the said premises is belonging to one Mumtaz Begum, who is the mother of the 3rd respondent herein. The said Mohamed Nynar was a tenant under the said Mumtaz Begum. The factory premises is measuring about 2400 sq.ft. During the year 2004, the said Mohamed Nynar approached the petitioner herein and expressed that due to his old age, he was unable to run the ice factory and as such, he offered to sell the same to the petitioner. The petitioner purchased the said ice factory from the said Mohamed Nynar, who arranged to get the tenancy attorned in favour of the petitioner from the said Mumtaz Begum. Thus, the petitioner became a tenant under the said Mumtaz Begum, as early as in the year 2004. Thereafter, with the consent of the said Mumtaz Begum, the licence for running the Ice Factory was transferred in his name from the Corporation of Chennai. Likewise, he also obtained Registration Certificate under the TNGST and CST. The petitioner is also having electricity supply for his factory in his name.
2.2. While so, the 3rd respondent herein, who is the son of the landlady Mumtaz Begum, filed an eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No.1018 of 2007 on the file of the XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, against the previous tenant Mohammed Nynar and the petitioner herein for eviction on various grounds. In the said eviction petition, the 3rd respondent herein described the petitioner herein as the sub-tenant under the said Mohammed Nynar. After due contest, the said eviction petition was dismissed in respect of the grounds under Sections 10(2)(iii), 10(2)(iv), 10(2)(v) and 10(3)(c) of the Act; however, an order of eviction was passed on the grounds under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. Against the said eviction order, on 14.10.2017 the petitioner herein filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.695 of 2017 on the file of the learned IX Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai and an interim order of status quo was granted by the appellate authority in favour of the petitioner herein and the said appeal is still pending.
2.3. In this situation, the 3rd respondent has caused a legal notice to the petitioner herein on 22.09.2017 stating that the property has been acquired for construction of Chennai Metro Rail Station and informed the petitioner to vacate the premises, for which the petitioner has sent a suitable reply through his counsel on 03.10.2017 and a copy of the same was also sent to the 1st respondent herein. Though the 1st respondent had received the said notice, they have not sent any reply for the same.
2.4. While so, on 11.10.2017 and 19.10.2017, the officials of from the 1st respondent's office came to the petitioner's ice factory and told him that he should vacate the premises as the property has been acquired for Chennai Metro Rail Scheme. When the petitioner asked the official to show the notification, they evaded to show the same to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner presumed that there was no such notification for acquisition of the subject property at all. The officials were acting at the behest of the 3rd respondent to evict the petitioner at any rate, except due process of law. The officials of the 1st respondent have not served on the petitioner any notice under Section 21(1) of the Metro Railways (Construction and works) Act, or any proceedings of the alleged acquisition. Therefore, the petitioner caused a legal notice on 20.10.2017 to the office of the 1st respondent herein setting out the above facts, and called upon to desist from interfering from evicting and enjoyment of
