Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
The Chairman Chennai Port Trust - Petitioners
Versus
V.Balaji – Respondent
CRP. Nos. 1020 & 985 of 2025 and CMP. Nos. 5908 & 5625 of 2025
Decided On : 11-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi
Post-expiration of a license period, continued possession by a licensee is classified as unauthorized occupation under the Public Premises Act.
Headnote:(A) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Section 2(g) - Challenges the orders setting aside the Estate Officer's declaration of unauthorized occupancy - Court held that upon expiry of license period, continued possession constitutes unauthorized occupation under the Act. (Paras 5-7)
(B) License agreements - Expiry of license results in unauthorized occupation if the license is not renewed after the specified period. (Paras 5-7)
Facts of the case:
Respondent was licensed in 1987, with subsequent rent increases. Respondents challenged rent increments and sought injunctions against eviction, leading to various litigations. The Estate Officer declared the licensees as unauthorized occupants prompting the present revisions.
Findings of Court:
The appellate authority found the licensor's claims unsubstantiated; agreement details reveal that respondents maintained possession during license effective periods.
Issues: Whether the respondents were indeed unauthorized occupants post-license expiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that despite continuous possession, the failure to renew licenses after expiration led to classification as unauthorized occupants per the legislative definitions.
Result: Revisions allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to eviction orders and license fees. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellate court's determination of unauthorized occupancy. - How should appellate courts handle license agreements? (Para 4) |
| 3. argument regarding license expiry and unauthorized occupation. - How should appellate courts handle license agreements? (Para 5) |
| 4. court observations on license agreements and eviction. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. conclusion of the revisions allowed. (Para 8) |
ORDER :
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
Challenging the orders of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai setting aside the order of the Estate Officer, the present revisions have been filed.
2. The respondents were during the year 1987 was inducted into the premises of the second petitioner as a licensee at the rate of Rs.65/- per sq.m. per annum. License period was for a period of 10 years. Thereafter, it appears that the second revision petitioner had enhanced the license fee from Rs.65/- sq.m. per annum to Rs.80/- per sq.m. per annum. Thereafter, it appears that the license fee was enhanced to Rs.120 per sq.m. per annum from May 2001 onwards. The same was challenged in WP.Nos.2443 and 22274 of 2005 by the respondents and this Court directed the respondents to approach the civil court. Therefore, the respondent in CRP. No. 1020 of 2025 has been filed to seeking not to disturb their peaceful possession except by due process of law and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from collecting the enhanced rent and for mandatory injunction for fixing rent taking into consideration the amenities and infrastructure available and for other reliefs. The said suit was partly decreed granting permanent injunction not to disturb by the respondent except by way of following due process of law, appeal in A.S.No.42 of 2021 was confirmed and second appeal is filed before this Court. Similarly, the respondent in CRP.No.986 of 2025 filed a suit in O.S.No.4754 of 2013 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai seeking not to disturb their peaceful possession except by due process of law and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from collecting the enhanced rent and for mandatory injunction for fixing rent taking into consideration the amenities and infrastructure available and for other reliefs. The said suit was originally dismissed for default on 30.10.2018. The respondent has filed applications for condoning the delay in filing restoration petition and to restore the suit. The Trial Court has condoned the delay and the case is posted for arguments for restoration petition.
3. Once again, writ petitions in WP.Nos.23398 of 2012 and 8176 of 2003 were filed challenging charging of electricity, service charge and they were disposed. Against which, writ appeals were filed in W.A.No.1765 and 1762 of 2013. This Court vide order dated 01.04.2014 directed that the mortgage to be created in respect of superstructure and no objection for getting service connection from TANGEDCO. Hence, mortgage deeds were executed and subsequently, civil suits were filed for discharging the mortgage and the same are pending. At this juncture, notices under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were issued and the respondents appeared before the third respondent/Estate Officer. The Estate Officer vide orders dated 21.09.2022 and 10.04.2023 declared the petitioners as unauthorised occupants. Challenging the same, appeal were filed.
4. The appellate authority/learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has found that during the pendency of the proceedings, the rents have been clearly received. Further, the petitioners were not unauthorizedly inducted. They were inducted as lessee and that the lease period is not expired to declare them as unauthorised occupants and set aside the orders of the third respondent/Estate Officer. Challenging the same, the present revisions.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Ap
