Madras High Court
N.Vignesh vs The Member Secretary on 18 May, 2022
W.P.No.13142 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.05.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.13142 of 2022
&
W.M.P.No.12490 of 2022
N.Vignesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Sports Development Authority
116-A, E.V.R.Periyar High Road,
Nehru Park
Chennai - 600030.
2.The Regional Senior Manager
Development of Sports & youth Welfare
Sports Development Authority of
Tamil Nadu
Coimbatore Region
Nehru Stadium Complex,
Coimbatore - 641 018 ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or Direction or any other
order in the nature of writ, forbearing the Respondents from
disturbing the Petitioner’s peaceful possession and conduct of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 12
W.P.No.13142 of 2022
business from shop No.6, Nehru Stadium Complex, Coimbatore -
641 018, either by coercive Sealing of shop or evicting the petitioner
in any other manner without resorting to due process of law.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh Kumar
ORDER
The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to forbear the
respondents from disturbing the petitioner’s peaceful possession and
conduct of business from shop No.6, Nehru Stadium Complex,
Coimbatore - 641 018, either by coercive Sealing of shop or evicting
the petitioner in any other manner without resorting to due process
of law.
2. The petitioner is in occupation in the shop bearing Door
No.6, Nehru Stadium Complex, Coimbatore. Lease was granted
initially for a period of three years and it was not renewed
periodically. Even after the expiry of the lease, the petitioner is
continuing in the subject shop for several years by paying the rent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13142 of 2022
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission
that the petitioner is paying the rent punctually and is not a defaulter
and therefore, he must be allowed to continue in the premises by
enhancing 15% of the rent amount.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents objected the contentions raised by the petitioner by
stating that, the petitioner has no right to continue in the subject
shop premises as the period of lease expired long back. Even the
petitioner was not paying the rent punctually and his unauthorized
continuance in the premises cannot be allowed and therefore, the
petitioner is liable to be evicted and the shop must be auctioned for
the benefit of the respondent authority.
5. Perusal of the records reveal that notice was issued to the
writ petitioner by the respondents on 31.03.2022 itself, demanding
arrears of rent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13142 of 2022
6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the arrears
of rent had already been paid.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further made a
reference regarding the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28166
of 2021 etc., dated 29.12.2021, wherein, a direction has been given.
Perusal of the said order reveals that this Court has stated that the
respondents authority have full liberty to decide upon and fix the
terms of the lease agreement, any change in terms must be put to the
petitioners prior to such change being effected. The petitioners
therein were defaulters, there was a direction to pay the enhanced
lease rental amount. The fixation of rent and rental arrears were
discussed in the above said order. Accordingly, the Court granted a
Personal Hearing and the respondents are granted with a liberty to
take a view regarding the extension of lease within a period of four
weeks from the date of personal hearing. Till such time, the
petitioners were allowed to continue in possession on condition that
those petitioners pay the rental arrears.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13142 of 2022
8. In paragraph 10 of the order, this Court has held that the
respondents are at full liberty to proceed with the proceedings as
proposed as well as any other proceedings as may be contemplated to
recover the arrears of rent from the petitioners and evict them as per
law. The said order has been passed subject to the conditions
imposed in paragraph 8 regarding payment of rent.
9. The order of this Court clarifies that the respondents have to
take a decision for extension of lease. Extension of lease cannot be
granted as a routine affair in favour of a person, who is already in
occupation. Equal opportunity and transparency are the hallmark in
dealing with the public properties. The Tamil Nadu Transparency in
Tenders Act, 1998, contemplates public auction by following the
procedures as contemplated. Therefore, on expiry of lease, auction is
to be conducted and extension is to be granted on certain
circumstances, if an administrative decision is taken, considering
various factors. A lessee cannot seek for extension of lease as a
matter of right. In other words, extension of lease is not an absolute
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13142 of 2022
right of a lessee, by mutual concerned, lease is to be extended. Court
cannot laid down terms and conditions for lease or for extension of
lease. It is between the parties concerned and only if there is
violations of Statutory provisions or Rules in force or certain
infringement of rights are established, then alone the Writ Court
would interfere, but not otherwise.
10. Parties are always at liberty to extend the lease by way of
consensus or opt for a fresh lease through open auction. While doing
so, the Constitutional principles are to be followed with reference to
the Statutes in force. Thus, a lessee cannot approach the Court for
his continuance in the public property for an indefinite period, even
without extension of lease by the competent authorities. In the event
of Court extending the lease without allowing the parties to comply
with the provisions of law, the same would result in financial loss to
the public Ex-chequer and thus, the Court is also expected to be
cautious, while allowing the lessee to continue in the premises in the
absence of any extension of lease.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13142 of 2022
11. Misplaced sympathy in this regard would lead to
inequality and unconstitutionality in the matter of dealing with the
public properties. Thus, in all circumstances, the lease is to be
extended by following the provisions of law and by consensus
between the parties, failing which, open auction is to be conducted.
It is not as if, certain personal grievances are expressed before the
High Court and the lessee gets an order from this Court in the
absence of any extension of lease, document and thereafter, continue
for a longer period by keeping the writ petition pending, at no
circumstances, be appreciated. But such practices are to be
deprecated in public interest. Thus, the said judgment is of no avail
to the petitioner herein. The Court also clarified that in the event of
payment of arrears of rent, the authorities have to take a decision for
extension of lease. Therefore, the Court has not extended the lease
even in that case relied on by the petitioners.
12. The attempt made by the lessee is to continue in the
premises, one way or otherwise, more so, through litigative process
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13142 of 2022
cannot be encouraged. Once the rights are not established, then writ
is not entertainable. Only in the event of establishing a right, the
writ Court would entertain the writ petition but not otherwise.
13. It is needless to state that the lessor and lessee namely
the respondents and the writ petitioner are very well aware of the
terms and conditions of the lease and possession of the public
property was handed over to the petitioner, based on such terms and
conditions. When the terms and conditions of lease are known to the
parties, then they are bound by the same and they cannot be allowed
to turn around and take a different stand for the purpose of
continuance of the lease without establishing their right. In a
contractual obligations, the principles of natural justice would not be
attracted at all circumstances. Only on certain exceptional
circumstances, in the absence of any clause or otherwise, show cause
notice may be required. If the terms and conditions of the contract
are very much known to the parties, thereafter, the parties are
allowed to invoke the same by initiating appropriate action. Only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13142 of 2022
notice, which is to be issued, is to ask the lessee to vacate the
premises within a stipulated time. When the conditions are
unambiguous, then the lessee is expected to act as per the terms and
conditions and by on hyper technical grounds, he cannot be allowed
to take undue advantage of the public properties, which would result
in detrimental to the interest of the public.
14. The premises in question is the public premises. The
respondents being the public authorities, are bound to protect the
public properties in all respects. The Revenue from the public
properties are of paramount importance for the purpose of providing
amenities and infrastructures to the public at large. In the event of
auctioning the public properties periodically, the public will be the
beneficiaries. More amenities and better infrastructures can be
provided by the competent authorities. In such circumstances, the
petitioner/lessee also is entitled to participate in the process of
auction, if he is otherwise eligible and qualified. Contrarily, he
cannot attempted to continue in the premises one way or other and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13142 of 2022
by adopting certain litigative processes. When an opportunity has
been provided to the petitioner to participate in the open auction, he
must do so and if he became highest bidder, he will be conferred
with the right of lease. Therefore, the petitioner as of now, do not
possess any valid lease to continue in the subject premises and
therefore, he is not entitled for any relief as such sought for in the
present writ petition. The orders relied on by the petitioner are of no
avail, in view of the fact that this Court also directed the respondents
to take a decision and action, directing the respondents to take a
decision, would do no service to the cause of justice. Contrarily, it
will lead to multiplication of proceedings, which is not desirable.
The rights of the parties are to be crystallized by passing a direction
to consider the case, would not do any service to the cause of justice
and the parties are once again before the Court for further
adjudication and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner is liable to be evicted as he is not the holder of valid lease
and by invoking the terms and conditions of the lease, the
respondents are empowered to initiate action.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13142 of 2022
15. Thus, the petitioner has not established any right for
grant of relief and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.05.2022
kan
Index : Yes
Speaking order
To
1. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Sports Development Authority
116-A, E.V.R.Periyar High Road,
Nehru Park
Chennai - 600030.
2.The Regional Senior Manager
Development of Sports & youth Welfare
Sports Development Authority of
Tamil Nadu
Coimbatore Region
Nehru Stadium Complex,
Coimbatore - 641 018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13142 of 2022
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kan
W.P.No.13142 of 2022
18.05.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
