Madras High Court
Mrs.Habibunnissa vs Estate Officer Cum Assistant ... on 14 September, 2023
C.R.P.NPD No.3658 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.09.2023
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.3658 of 2019
and CMP No.24005 of 2019
Mrs.Habibunnissa .. Petitioner
vs
Estate Officer cum Assistant Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai-600 003. ...Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India
against the decree and judgment passed in CMA No.31 of 2018 dated
12.03.2019 on the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the
order of the respondent made in Proceedings Ni.Ma.U.Thu
Na.a.No.LE4/4740/2000 dated 17.04.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.Muniruddin Sheriff
For Respondent : Ms.K.Aswini Devi
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.NPD No.3658 of 2019
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises against an order passed by the
respondent in CMA No.31 of 2018 dated 12.03.2019.
2. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, in the capacity as an
Estate Officer for the Corporation of Chennai, passed an Order of eviction in
Proceedings No.Ne.Ma.U.Tu.Na.Ka.No.LE44740/2000 dated 17.04.2018 under
Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1975.
The order of eviction was challenged in CMA No.31 of 2018. The said appeal
was dismissed. Against the said order, the present revision has been filed.
3. The civil revision petitioner is in occupation of the properties situated
at S.No.2/9, V.O.C.Nagar, Waltax Road, Chennai-79. The land belongs to the
Corporation. It was leased out to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. The
lease was not renewed. As the petitioner continued to be in occupation of the
same, proceedings were initiated in the year 2001. As the authorities had not
followed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1975 in letter and spirit, C.M.A.No.20 of 2009,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.NPD No.3658 of 2019
preferred against the original proceedings was allowed and eviction order was
set aside. A direction was given in the appeal to proceed afresh in the matter.
4. The respondent initiated fresh proceedings in 2017 and that resulted in
a final order being passed on 17.04.2017, against which, CMA No.31 of 2018
came to be presented.
5. Heard Mr.Muniruddin Sheriff, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and Ms.Aswini Devi, learned counsel for the respondent.
6. Mr.Muniruddin Sheriff, learned counsel would draw my attention to
the order passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in CMA
No.20 of 2009 and would point out that fresh proceedings ought to have been
initiated as the appeal had been allowed. He contends instead of re-initiating
the proceedings, the respondent had continued with the old proceedings.
7. It is not in dispute that there is no lease in favour of the petitioner
today. Under Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act, 1975 “a person is said to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.NPD No.3658 of 2019
be in unauthorised occupation if he had lawfully entered possession of the
property, the authorisation on the basis of which he continued in possession
had expired and had not been renewed”.
8. The present case is one such situation. The petitioner's predecessor-in-
title had lawfully entered the property as lessees under the Corporation,
however, the said lease was not extended. Therefore, the petitioner becomes an
unauthorised occupant within the meaning of the Act. The petitioner being an
unauthorised occupant is entitled to be issued a show cause notice and on
receipt of the reply, a decision had to be made. In this case, it is not in dispute
that pursuant to the order passed in C.M.A.No.20 of 2009, notice had been
issued to the civil revision petitioner, her view has been obtained and final
orders have been passed.
9. Insofar as the argument of Mr.Muniruddin Sheriff that fresh orders
have to be passed, I have gone through the order in C.M.A.No.20 of 2009. The
learned Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the proceedings dated
25.02.2009. Thereafter, he had remitted the matter to the respondent to initiate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.NPD No.3658 of 2019
fresh proceedings. Remitting the proceedings implies that fresh proceedings
need not be initiated. It means a fresh order ought to be passed in terms of the
order passed in C.M.A.No.20 of 2009.This is what has been done by way of an
order dated 17.04.2017.
10. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the
learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in CMA No.31 of 2018
dated 12.03.2019 confirming the order of the Estate Officer dated 17.04.2017.
Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
11. At this stage, Mr.Muniruddin Sheriff states that his client has been in
occupation of the property for a long time and a reasonable time may be granted
to enable them to vacate and hand over possession.
12. Taking note of the fact that the proceedings have been pending for
twenty three years, I am inclined to grant nine (9) months time till 30.06.2024.
The time granted is conditional on the revision petitioner, filing an affidavit of
undertaking that she will not part with the possession to any third party and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.NPD No.3658 of 2019
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.,
sr
continues to pay rental amount and clears the dues, if any to the owner of the
property viz., Corporation of Chennai.
12. Time for filing of an affidavit is granted till 25.09.2023. In fine, the
Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
Call the matter on 26.09.2023 for compliance.
14.09.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sr
To
1. The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras
2. Estate Officer cum Assistant Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai-600 003.
C.R.P.No.3658 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
