IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
Motchamary – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Dindigul Corporation, Dindigul. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks protection of tenant possession. (Para 1 , 2) |
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to forbear from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the shop as a tenant, except in accordance with due process of law.
2.The petitioner claims to have been in possession of the shop for the past 40 years and states that the licence granted in his favour is valid up to March 2027. It is his grievance that, without following due process of law, the respondents have demolished the shops. 3.The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent submitted that the shops allotted to the petitioner and others in the Fish Market were demolished on the ground that they were in a dilapidated condition, and that a new complex is proposed to be constructed for allotment of shops through a public auction. It was further submitted that preference would be given to the petitioner, in the event he participates in the auction for allotment of shops in the new Fish Market Complex.
4.The said submission is placed on record.
5.In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to give
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.