S.Palanivel vs C.M.R.Varma Prop. Ideal Pharmacy
2021 Latest Caselaw 21933 Mad

                                      1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                         DATED: 02.11.2021

                                Coram

            The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
                                  and
        The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

                        W.A.No.2726 of 2021
                     and C.M.P.No.17787 of 2021


S.Palanivel                                          .. Appellant

                                  Vs

1.C.M.R.Varma Prop. Ideal Pharmacy,
  No.50/107 G.N.Chetty Road,
  T.Nagar, Chennai.

2.The Commissioner,
  Greater Chennai Commissioner,
  Rippon Building, 1st Floor,
  Raja Muthiah Road,
  Kannappar Thidal, Periamet,
  Chennai – 3.

3.The Revenue Officer,
  Corporation of Chennai,
  Chennai.

4.The Assistant Revenue Officer,
  Greater Chennai Corporation,
  No.1, 4th Cross Street Lake Area,
  Nungambakkam,
  Chennai – 34.

5.The Zonal Officer – IX,
  Corporation of Chennai,
  Chennai.
                                    2

6.The License Inspector Zone – 9
  Greater Chennai Corporation,
  No – 1, 4th Cross Street Lake Area,
  Nungambakkam,
  Chennai – 34.                                            ..Respondents


      Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the

order dated 09.11.2020 made in W.P.No.870 of 2020.


            For Appellant     ..     Mr.C.B.Murali Krishnan


                              JUDGMENT

(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)

Challenge in this appeal is made to the order passed by learned

single Judge dated 09.11.2020 in W.P.No.870 of 2020. The present

appellant was the sixth respondent in the said writ petition.

2. It is noted that the impugned order is common qua

W.P.No.870 of 2020 and W.P.No.3098 of 2020. The present appellant

was the petitioner in W.P.No.3098 of 2020. No relief is granted to the

present appellant in his petition. There is no challenge to that part of

the impugned order, however challenge is to that part of the order

where the present appellant was standing as sixth respondent in

W.P.No.870 of 2020. Reference to the prayer clause in both the writ

petitions is made to the later part of this order at appropriate place.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that learned

single Judge fell in error while making observations in para 12 of the

impugned order to the effect that 'Neither the Corporation of Chennai

nor this Court can go into the landlord tenant dispute between the

parties and the same has to be agitated only before the appropriate

forum'. It is this part of the order and the consequences flowing there

from which is the cause of action for the present appellant who is

landlord vis-a-vis the writ petitioner of W.P.No.870 of 2020. It is

submitted that the respondent – the writ petitioner of W.P.No. 870 of

2020 had no authority to continue in the premises and without No

Objection Certificate from the landlord (the present appellant),

direction could not have been given to the licensing authority to

consider the application for renewal/issuance of fresh licence. It is

submitted that this part of the order of learned single Judge be

interfered with. According to the learned advocate for the appellant,

the point before the learned single Judge was not of renewal of licence

but it was getting fresh licence by the said writ petitioner. It is

submitted that in view of this, the impugned order needs interference

and this appeal be entertained.

4. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant and

having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under:

4.1. The writ petitioner of W.P.No.870 of 2020 (the present

respondent no.1) has made the following averments in the petition:

"2. I submit that I am the proprietor of Ideal Pharmacy and have been running the medical shop under the name of style of Ideal Pharmacy for the past 35 years. During the year 1985 I was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent for running a medical shop in the place cited supra. After over the period of years, original landlords namely Mr.M.Subramanian and M.Sankaran have sought for eviction on the ground of wilful default, owners of occupation/ additional accommodation by filing R.C.O.P. before the concerned jurisdiction court where I was successfully got an order in my favour from the courts below. Thereafter, the said landlord filed Civil Revision Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in C.R.P. (NPD) No.3506 of 2009 wherein the said Civil Revision Petition was referred to Lok Adalat and subsequently the same was closed in terms of settlement arrived between me and the landlords by the award order dated 05.09.2011 passed in Lok adalat - 1."

4.2. The above shows that the medical shop has been

functioning at the premises in question, since decades. Since in the

inspection by the Municipal Corporation authorities, it was found that

the said petitioner/ medical shop did not have any live licence, seal

was applied and that was the cause of action for the petitioner of

W.P.No.870 of 2020 to move this Court with the following prayer:

"Prayer in W.P.No.870 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records sequel to sealing the medical shop by affixing impugned notice bearing No.M.A.VA.THU.NA.KA.EN. AAR2/ 14980/ 2019 dated 18.12.2019 affixed by the 4th respondent and to quash the same consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant Trade license without insisting no objection certificate from the landlord for enable the petitioner to carry the business of medical shop namely Ideal Pharmacy at Door No.50/107, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai."

4.3. Not only the above petition was contested by the present

appellant, he also filed a petition being W.P.No.3908 of 2020

principally with the following prayer:

"Prayer in W.P.No.3908 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to forbear from removing the seal affixed in the premises bearing Door No.50/107, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17 dated 18.12.2019 in proceeding No.Na.Ka.No. R2/ 14980/ 19 without obtaining license from the second respondent."

4.4. So far W.P.No.3908 of 2020 is concerned, the said prayer is

not acceded to by learned single Judge. That part of the order is not

under challenge and it has attained finality.

4.5. The grievance of the present appellant therefore is that,

even though his prayer - not to remove the seal applied by the

Corporation on the medical shop of the present first respondent/ writ

petitioner of W.P.No.870 of 2020 might not have been acceded to, no

direction could have been given by learned single Judge to the

Corporation to consider the request of the respondent for grant of

licence/ renewal thereof, without No Objection Certificate from the

present appellant.

4.6. We find that the observation of learned single Judge in para

12 that "Neither the Corporation of Chennai nor this Court can go into

the landlord tenant dispute between the parties and the same has to

be agitated only before the appropriate forum." cannot be said to be

erroneous in any manner. In our view, the present appellant, in

substance wanted back-door eviction proceedings by the landlord vis-

a-vis the tenant who is petitioner of W.P.No.870 of 2020, which is

rightly not entertained by learned single Judge. Whatever

nomenclature or vocabulary is used in the prayer clause in writ petition

or in writ appeal, in substance what the present appellant wants is

that, the person who is in possession of the premises and who has

been running the medical shop for more than thirty five years, be not

permitted to work there, without the No Objection Certificate from the

landlord (the present appellant), which the appellant is not ready to

give. On the face of this, we find that entertaining this appeal would

have the effect beyond the subject matter of the writ petition/ appeal.

This appeal, therefore, needs to be dismissed.

4.7. The argument that, this was the case of fresh licence and

not renewal thereof does not take the case of the appellant any

further, since it was not the case of any of the authorities that the

petitioner wanted to start medical shop afresh and for that, he was

praying for licence. The said medical shop has been functioning since

more than 35 years and any lacunae in renewal of the licence cannot

be permitted to be taken advantage of by the landlord – the present

appellant.

5. For the above reasons, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                          (P.U.J.,)      (J.S.N.P.J.,)
                                                   02.11.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/3

To
1.The Commissioner,
  Greater Chennai Commissioner,
  Rippon Building, 1st Floor,
  Raja Muthiah Road,
  Kannappar Thidal, Periamet,
  Chennai – 3.

2.The Revenue Officer,
  Corporation of Chennai,
  Chennai.

3.The Assistant Revenue Officer,
  Greater Chennai Corporation,
  No.1, 4th Cross Street Lake Area,
  Nungambakkam,
  Chennai – 34.



4.The Zonal Officer – IX,
  Corporation of Chennai,
  Chennai.

5.The License Inspector Zone – 9
  Greater Chennai Corporation,
  No – 1, 4th Cross Street Lake Area,
  Nungambakkam,
  Chennai – 34.




            PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
                            and
     J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.


                              mmi




               W.A.No.2726 of 2021




                       02.11.2021