Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 6525
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Mr Justice J.Sathya Narayana Prasad, J
Sri Rag Snack Bar – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner – Respondent
WP No.25840 of 2022
A.Alluri Lakshmi Narayanan, Mr.E.C.Ramesh, M/s. K.Vasanthamala, M/s. R.Rajesh Vivekananthan
The court emphasized the necessity of due process in eviction and demolition proceedings, protecting tenant rights until legal resolutions are achieved.
Headnote:
(A) Writ of Mandamus - Illegality in demolition proceedings - Petitioner seeks to restrain respondents from demolishing premises and restoring utilities - Petitioner has been a tenant for decades and alleges illegal actions by landlords and authorities - Interim injunction granted to maintain status quo regarding demolition and utilities (Paras 1-5).
(B) Tenancy Rights - The court recognizes the long-term tenancy and the need for due process in eviction proceedings - Any demolition must comply with legal requirements (Paras 5-10).
(C) Interim Orders - The court emphasizes the necessity of compliance with interim orders to protect tenant rights (Paras 6-8).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner has operated a tea shop for about three decades and alleges illegal eviction attempts by the landlords, leading to a writ petition for protection against demolition and restoration of utilities.
Findings of Court:
The court directs the first respondent to initiate demolition proceedings only after the outcome of pending cases and affirms the need for tenant eviction to follow due process.
Issues: The core issues include the legality of demolition actions against the petitioner and the restoration of essential utilities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlights the importance of adhering to legal processes in eviction and demolition matters, ensuring tenant rights are protected until all legal avenues have been exhausted.
Result: Writ petition stands disposed of with directions.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, restraining respondents 1 to 3 from granting any permission aiding respondents 4 to 7 in illegally demolishing the remaining structure at Door No.79, Plot No.3417, 'H' Block, Second Main Road, Arignar Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 102, and to restore the sewage, metro water supply and electricity connection to its permanent in the aforesaid premises.
2. The petitioner is running a tea shop in the name of Sri Rag Snack Bar on rent at Door No.79, Plot No.3417, "H" Block, Second Main Road, Arignar Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 102 for about three decades. The petitioner became the tenant for the said shop premises under Mr.M.A.Selvam in the year 1994, who was the builder of the premises and was on a long term lease of the said premises with the original owner, Dr.Loganathan. After the expiry of the said lease and demise of said Dr.Loganathan, the petitioner entered into a fresh lease agreement with his first wife, Mrs.Prema Loganathan and the second wife, Mrs.Kumari Loganathan, the 5th respondent herein, in the year 2003 and has been running the tea shop in the said premises till date. After the demise of the first wife of the said Dr.Loganathan, the 5th respondent and her two children, viz., son and daughter, who are the 6th and 7th respondents herein, became the owners of the shop premises, and the premises is managed by their Power of Attorney Agent, Mrs.Nalini Devi, the 4th respondent herein. The 4th respondent under the instructions of respondents 5 to 7, has been persistently demanding all the tenants to vacate the property with immediate effect. In fact, they had filed a Rent Control Original Petition viz., RCOP.No.1111 of 2014 on the file of XV Small Causes Court, Chennai, seeking the eviction of the petitioner shop, but the same was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondents 4 to 7, after getting vacant possession of the adjacent building to the one where the petitioner and the other tenants are running business seem to have now obtained permission from the 1st respondent to demolish the structure by giving false information. The petitioner and other tenants were not put on notice or intimated about the proposed demolition. The respondents have started demolishing the other building adjacent to the one where the petitioner is running a tea shop. As a prelude to the demolition, respondents 4 to 7 have already severed/disconnected the drainage system. They have also transferred the permanent EB connection to a temporary post. Because of severing the drainage connection, the petitioner is not able to discharge the sewage water from his shop, and the sewage water is flooded near the shop.
4. Learned counsel would further submit that the act of the respondents in disconnecting the sewage connection and the imminent threat of disconnection of the electricity supply is illegal and unlawful, and they have also severed the metro water connection to the said premises. Ignoring the petitioners' possession and running a tea shop on the premises, the statutory authorities seem to have passed adverse orders having huge implications on the petitioner's right to do business of his choice. The respondents 4 to 7 are bent upon demolishing the property under one pretext or another with the help of respondents 1 to 3 and illegally evicting the petitioner and similarly placed tenants of the property being the subject matter of this Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that when the matter was came up for admission on 27.09.2022, this Court was pleased to grant an order of interim injunction, and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“5. In such circumstances, there shall be an order of interim injunction restraining the Fourth to Seventh Respondents from demolishing any part of the structure in the building without eviction of all the t
