Vangiliappan.V v. The District Manager / Deputy Collector

ORDER This Writ Petition is filed for Writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 19.07.2023.

¶2Admittedly, the petitioner and the second respondent are having lease agreement. The second respondent is the owner of premises and the petitioner is the lessee and having Bar license and running a TASMAC Shop.

¶3The contention of the second respondent is that the petitioner has not paid any lease amount and there is an arrear amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) approximately. Hence the second respondent had filed a petition dated 17.07.2023 before the first respondent authority with the prayer to vacate the writ petitioner from the said premises. The first respondent has entertained the petition and has passed the impugned order and the same is extracted hereunder: "ghh;it1,y; fhZk; jpU.v!;/ uhkrhkp j/bg rp';fhuk; vd;gth; jdJ kDtpy; jdf;F brhe;jkhd jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp khtl;lk; jpUr;rp nkw;F tl;lk; kJf;Tlj;ij elj;jptUk; jpU. th';fpypag;gd; vd;gth; jd;dplk; thlif xg;ge;jk; bra;ahkYk; Kd;gzk; kw;Wk; thlif bjhif juhkYk; kJf;Tlj;ij elj;jp tUtjhy; nkw;go kJf;Tlj;ij K:l cj;jutpLkhW nfhhpa[s;shh;. kJf;Tlj;ij elj;jp tUgth; nkw;go ,lj;jpd; chpikahsUf;F ju ntz;oa thlif nghd;w ,d';fis clDf;Fld; brYj;jp ,zf;fkhf kJf;Tlj;ij elj;jptu ntz;Lk;. kJf;Tlk; elj;jp tUgth; nkw;go ,lj;jpd; chpikahsiu bjhlh;g[bfhz;L j';fSf;Fs; cs;s gpur;ridfis xU thu fhyj;jpw;Fs; Kot[f;Fs; bfhz;L tu ntz;Lbkd mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwJ. jtWk;gl;rj;jpy; kJf;Tl chpkk; uj;J bra;ag;gLbkdt[k; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ." Through the said order, the first respondent is directed the petitioner to coordinate with the second respondent owner and run the shop.

¶4This Court unable to understand how the first respondent has entertained such petition. There is no jurisdiction for the first respondent to entertain and interfere in the lease agreement between the petitioner and the second respondent, which is a private contract between them. Admittedly, the second respondent has filed a petition to evict the petitioner from the said premises before the appropriate forum and the same is pending. The second respondent has alleged that the petitioner is not receiving the notice in the said eviction proceedings. Then the second respondent ought to take appropriate proceedings by paper publication etc., Therefore, the second respondent cannot claim any relief by filing a petition before the authorities.

¶5The impugned order is quashed, since it is without jurisdiction. However, the petitioner is advised to face the litigation without evading notice. If the petitioner is evading notice, then the 2nd respondent may take steps for getting exparte order and evict the petitioner as per law.

¶6In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.09.2023

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Sml

S.SRIMATHY, J.

Sml

12.09.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.09.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P.(MD).No.15042 of 2023 V.Vangiliappan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Manager/ Deputy Collector, Tamil Nadu State Marketting Corporation, Trichy-15. 2.S.Ramasamy ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No. rptp3/500/2023 dated 19.07.2023 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For R-1 : Mr.S.Sivanesan For R-2 : Mr.S.K.Mani