The judgment established that the pendency/dismissal of rent control proceedings for demolition and reconstruction would not bar the Municipal Authorities from ordering demolition of a building, and the violation of principles of natural justice would not vitiate the impugned order if the affected party had been heard at length and had no further explanation to offer.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in W.P(MD).No.9745 of 2021: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings Ref: No.M3A4:/2438/2021 dated 26.05.2021, quash the same.

W.P(MD).No.10059 of 2021: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Ref: No.MTHI3/007654/2020 dated 07.05.2021 and the consequential order made by the second respondent in M3A4/2438/2021 dated 26.05.2021 and quash the same as illegal.)

Common Order:

The petitioner in both the writ petitions are tenants who are running a restaurant and a sweet stall in the property belonging to one Kasirajan. Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging an order passed by the Madurai Municipal Corporation on 26.05.2021 under which the Corporation has granted permission for demolition of the buildings on the ground that the said buildings are damaged due to rain and they are in a dangerous condition likely to fall upon the general public.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has contended as follows:

(i). The petitioner in WP(MD).No.10059 of 2021 has taken the Door No.36, East Veli Street, Madurai on lease from one Kasirajan and he has been keeping the premises in good condition after carrying out repair and renovation works. Rent control proceedings were initiated by the landlord in RCOP.No.170 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Controller, Madurai seeking possession of the property on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The said application was rejected on 17.09.2019.

(ii). The landlord having failed in his attempt to take possession of the property through the rent control proceedings, had approached the Municipal Authority under Section 327 of Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act 1971 and has requested them to pass an order granting permission for demolition of the building. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the said order has been passed as against one Manonmani who had passed away long back.

(iii). The learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the landlord has presented an application on 10.05.2021 and the same has been readily accepted by the Corporation and the impugned order has been passed on 26.05.2021 and on the same day, amount has been remitted by the landlord towards cost of demolition. The sequence of events will clearly show that the entire exercise is actuated by malice in law.

3. The learned Senior Counsel referred to a Division Bench Judgment reported in 2009 (6) CTC 623 ( The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai Vs. R.S.Vaideeswaran and others) to impress upon the Court that without issuing a show cause notice to the tenant in possession of the property and without arriving at a specific finding that the structure is imminently dangerous to the inmates, any order passed by the Municipal Authority is not legally sustainable. The learned Senior Counsel had further relied upon another Division Bench Judgment reported in 2018 SCC SCC Online Madras 5010 ( Manimegalai Vs. The Commissioner, Pudukkottai Municipality and others) to impress upon the Court that without issuing a notice to the occupier and conducting an inspection, the premises cannot be sealed. He had further contended that a copy of inspection report should be given to the occupier and the remarks should be called for from the landlord and tenant. Without following the said process, the Madurai Corporation has proceeded to grant permission in favour of the landlord on a mere application without hearing the tenant or conducting any inspection.

4. The learned Senior Counsel further relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2013- I- CWC- 723 (Rama Devi Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and others) to impress upon the Court that