The authority must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring notice and opportunity of hearing before eviction to protect tenant rights.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.3841/2023/F2 dated 22.02.2024, wherein the first respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within two days, failing which the property would be demolished.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Municipality, and the learned counsel for the second respondent. Records have been perused.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property situated at Door No.51, Town Survey No.153/1, Ajmadrani Complex, Kannan Bazaar, Uthama Vinayagar Koil Street, Sekkalai Road, Karaikudi, belongs to the second respondent. The petitioner is a tenant of the said premises for over 25 years, running a textile showroom in the name and style of “Prema Dresses”. It is stated that the petitioner has been paying a monthly rent of Rs.18,000/- regularly without any arrears. However, the second respondent demanded an enhanced rent of Rs.25,000/- per month, which the petitioner found excessive and unfair. Upon his refusal, the second respondent issued a legal notice demanding the enhanced rent and threatening eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.S.No.18 of 2023 before the District Munsif Court, Karaikudi, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the second respondent from evicting him except by due process of law. During the pendency of the said suit, the second respondent filed R.L.T.O.P.No.14 of 2023 under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 seeking eviction. The petitioner has challenged the maintainability of the said petition, which is pending consideration. While so, on 23.02.2024, the petitioner was served with the impugned notice dated 22.02.2024 issued by the first respondent, directing him to vacate the premises within two days, failing which the property would be demolished. The impugned notice also refers to an earlier notice dated 17.10.2023, which the petitioner asserts was never served on him. The petitioner therefore contends that the impugned proceedings were issued in violation of principles of natural justice and without conducting any proper inspection or hearing.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent–

Municipality stating that the second respondent, being the owner of the premises consisting of six shops, submitted a written request dated 10.10.2023 seeking permission to demolish the building on the ground that it had become dilapidated due to water leakage and structural instability. It is submitted that out of six shops, four were already vacated, and only the petitioner’s portion remained occupied, preventing demolition. Pursuant to the said request, a spot inspection was conducted on 17.10.2023 by the Town Planning Officer and Town Planning Inspector, who opined that the structure was unsafe and required immediate demolition. Accordingly, permission was granted to the second respondent under Rule 12(a) to (c) of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, subject to certain conditions, including payment of demolition charges of Rs. 10,000/- to the Municipality. Thereafter, on 13.02.2024, the second respondent submitted a further petition stating that the petitioner had not vacated the premises. Consequently, the Municipality issued the impugned letter dated 22.02.2024, informing the petitioner to vacate the premises within two days, failing which the building would be demolished.

5. It is further stated that the second respondent has also approached the Tahsildar, Karaikudi, and the Inspector of Police, Kar