IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN and W.M.P.No.36690 of 2025

1. S.Prakash Vasista S/o. Late Sri Sathyanarayanan, Proprietor Of M/s.

Hoysala Associates, No.73c, Out House, Rathanavilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004. Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Commissioner Udagamandalam Municipality, Udagamandalam, The Nilgris.

2.Sri Abu Babaji Charitable Mission Trust, Represented By Its Managing Trustee, West Lake Palace, Hadfield Road, Ooty, The Nilgiris - 643001, The Owner Of The Property Situated At Door No.

982/b2, Pudhunagar, Marys Hill, Udhagamandalam. (r2 Suo Motu Impleaded Vide Order Dated 01.09.2025 Made In Wp.32773/2025 By Vlnj)

Respondent(s)

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the entire records on the file of the 1st respondent in pursuant of the “NOTICE bearing No.03/2025 dated

06.08.2025” and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): V. Ramamurthy For Respondent(s): Dr.T.Seenivasan, Special Government Pleader for R1 Ms.S.Varsha Takes Notice For R2

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the notice issued by the 1st respondent dated

06.08.2025.

2.There is no dispute that the 2nd respondent is the owner of the property bearing Door No.982/B, West Lake Palace, Hadfield Road, Ootacamund. The 2nd respondent entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner on 01.02.2020, and subsequently renewed them on 01.04.2022 and 09.05.2023. In all these lease agreements, the address is given as Door No.982/B, West Lake Palace, Hadfield Road, Ootacamund. On the strength of the agreement, the petitioner approached the GST authorities and disclosed the correct address, as set forth above. This is clear from the Registration Certificate issued for GST Registration Number: 33CMWPP4885L1ZY. However, when he filed an application before the 1st respondent, he stated as if the place of trade / business as Door No.982/B2, Pudhunagar, Marys Hill, Udhagamandalam – 643 001. He secured a trade license from the Municipality on the basis of this address. 3.On coming to know that the address for which the lease had been entered into, is different from the address for which the petitioner and the 2nd respondent had entered into the lease agreement, the Municipality issued him a notice. Thus, the petitioner challenged the same by way of the present writ petition.

4.Taking note of the fact that the landlord will be adversely affected if any orders are passed in the writ petition, the landlord was impleaded by this Court on 01.09.2025. The landlord has entered appearance through Ms.S.Varsha. It has also filed a counter affidavit and typed set of papers. A perusal of the typed set of papers filed by her reveals that between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, a suit is pending in O.S.No.58 of 2024, on the file of the District Munsif Court at Ootacamund. In the said suit, an application had been filed for interim injunction in I.A.No.2 of 2024 and the said application came to be dismissed by the learned District Munsif on 28.02.2025. A perusal of the order shows that the petitioner was being a wilful defaulter in payment of rent, causing loss of several lakhs of rupees to the landlord, it was held that the petitioner was disentitled to the order of injunction. The order passed by the Court in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.58 of 2024 dated 28.02.2025, had not been disclosed to this Court when the writ petition had been moved.

5.Mr.V.Ramamurthy stated that if time is granted, he would clear the arrears of rent. Taking into consideration the plea of Mr.V.Ramamurthy, I granted four weeks time to the petitioner to clear the arrears of Rs.49,89,000/-, on or before 25.10.2025. When the matter was called today, Mr.V.Ramamurthy urged that the arrears of rent as qualified by the learned District Munsif is wrong, and that the petitioner is only in arrears of rent for eighteen months (Rs.1,50,000/- being the rent per month), and if two