Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 17117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J
Anjuman-e-Himayath-e-Islam, No.16, B.N.Reddy Road, (Off. Vijayaraghava Road), T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017 – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation – Respondent
WP No. 6527 of 2026 | WMP.Nos.7106 & 7110 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Aazim Shehzad for Mr.Ferdinand D
For the Respondents: Mr.G.T.Subramaniam & Mr.E.C.Ramesh
The availability of a statutory remedy precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction in eviction matters under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding a demand notice for damages and subsequent eviction orders. The Court found that an adequate alternative remedy via statutory appeal under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 is available, stressing that writ jurisdiction is not meant for reviewing substantive decisions. The judgment emphasizes the importance of following statutory processes and reassures the petitioner of their right to appeal and raise all relevant points therein. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to appeal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to eviction order on grounds of natural justice and statutory compliance. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court notes the availability of alternative remedies via statutory appeal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. writ petition dismissed, allowing for statutory appeal. (Para 7) |
ORDER
I heard Mr.Aazim Shehzad for the petitioner and Mr.G.T.Subramaniam for the respondents.
2. The impugned order is attacked by Mr.Aazim Shehzad stating that it was passed in a hurried manner, without giving sufficient opportunity, to the petitioner. He further adds that the writ petitioner has, without any default, been remitting the rental amounts for the premises concerned with the respondents. He states that the order does not consider the scope of Section 2(g) of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975.
3. Per contra, Mr.G.T.Subramaniam states that even prior to the notice referred to by Mr.Aazim Shehzad, the Estate Officer had put the petitioner on notice, by way of Form A, on 29.08.2025 and it had been replied to, by the respondent. He states that there is a statutory appeal available to the file of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras against the impugned order under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act, 1975. Since there is an adequate alternate remedy which is available, he pleads the writ petition be dismissed.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made on both sides and gone through the records.
5. Mr.G.T.Subramaniam is right that an appeal is entertainable under section 9 of the Act, 1975 read with Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules of 1978. The time period to prefer an appeal is 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The appeal lies to an authority holding the rank of a Principal District Judge. The said authority has years of experience in civil jurisdiction.
6. In the appeal, the petitioner can urge all points including the pleas raised by Mr.Aazim Shehzad today that the time period given to the petitioner was limited as well as the retrospective increase of rent. The scope of writ of certiorari is not in the nature of appeal. It is only visitorial or supervisory jurisdiction in which this court would not be empowered to go into the decision itself but only with the decision making process. That would not be in the interest of the petitioner.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move the jurisdictional appellate authority. As the petitioner is a trust, it cannot be treated as the same manner as any other litigant. Hence, 30 days time is granted from today to prefer an appeal to the jurisdictional authority. Till the appeal is taken on file and the petitioner moves the appellate authority for an order of interim stay, the respondents shall not give effect to the impugned order. All points including those raised in the writ petition are kept open for the petitioner to raise before the appellate authority.
25-02-2026 nl Neutral Citation: Yes/No Note to Registry:Original of the impugned order filed along with the writ petition shall be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner after obtaining the usual endorsement.
To
