Madras High Court
The Deputy Commissioner vs Hindu Union Committee School on 26 September, 2024
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
C.R.P. No.1428 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 29.07.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
C.R.P. No.1428 of 2021
and CMP.No.11145 of 2021
1. The Deputy Commissioner,
(Revenue and Finance)
Estate Officer,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Chennai 600 003.
2. The Zonal Officer,
Zone-6, Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023. ... petitioners
Vs.
Hindu Union Committee School,
Rep. by its Secretary D.Chandrasekaran,
185, D' Mellows Road,
Chennai 600 012. ... respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the fair and decretal order passed by the Principal Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai in CMA.No.75 of 2018, dated 21.01.2020.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.1428 of 2021
For Petitioners : M/s.K.Aswini Devi
For Respondent : Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham
*****
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order
dated 21.01.2020 in CMA.No.75 of 2018 passed by the Principal Judge, City
Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the case would run
thus:
The land measuring an extent of 32 grounds in Survey
No.1730/1, Puraswalkam Taluk, Vepery was owned by
Chennai Corporation. The said land was given as lease to the
respondent School for 20 years vide lease deed No.2376/1947.
Thereafter, in the year 1962, a council resolution No.291/1962
dated 24.10.1962 was passed to sell 25 grounds of land out of
the 32 grounds to the respondent. Subsequently, the said land
was sold to the respondent School vide Doc.No.55/1963, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
02.01.1963. Apart from this land, lease was continued for the
remaining 7 grounds of land for a monthly rent of Rs.4/-. As
such, the lease period was expired on 11.12.1967. Therefore,
the petitioner sent a demand notice to pay a sum of
Rs.35,32,186/- for damages and service tax. Subsequently, the
Estate Officer has passed an order dated 09.11.2018 under
Section 5(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of
Unathorised Occupants) Act 1975 calling upon the respondent
to deliver vacant possession of the said property. Hence, the
respondent School filed CMA.No.75 of 2018 before the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai. The said CMA.No.75 of 2018 was allowed by decree
and judgment dated 21.01.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the
present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
3. It is the case of the respondent that they are running an aided
School in the subject premises. Originally, the Corporation leased out
32 grounds of land to the respondent for running School in the year 1947.
Subsequently, in the year 1963, out of the 32 grounds, 25 grounds were sold
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
at a nominal price to the School and the lease to the remaining 7 grounds
was continued. Thereafter, the lease was expired on 11.12.1967 and the
respondent School continued to pay the rent till 2005. That being so, a
notice was issued in the year 2017 under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act to pay a sum of Rs.37,88,491/-
for damages and service tax. Followed by that, an impugned order of
eviction was passed on 09.11.2018 stating that the respondent School is in
unathorised possession of the said premises. However, the respondent is not
an unauthorised occupant of the land and that the notice under Section 4(1)
of the Act does not contain any reason for eviction of lawful lessee from the
premises. The Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act 1975 is not applicable to the facts of the case.
4. It is the further case of the respondent that the respondent School is
being run without any profit, only with a view to promote education in the
locality, which is very backward and contains slum dwellers. However, the
first petitioner has fixed abnormal amount as damages for use and
occupation. The Corporation is trying to evict the school authorities from the
premises, which was leased out much before the enactment of the Public
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. In the disputed
premises, the playground is situated. It is to be seen that without the
playground, as per rules, the School could not be continued. Under such
circumstances, without any bonafide requirement, the present impugned
order has been passed. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act quoted in the impugned order itself is not applicable and the
only remedy open to the Corporation is by invoking the General Law, i.e.,
Transfer of Property Act to evict the respondent School from the premises.
5. On the other hand, the petitioner Corporation would submit that the
School is having only a strength of 115 students. The land admeasuring an
extent of 25 grounds out of 32 grounds, which was already sold to the
respondent is sufficient for running the School. Out of the total extent of
50000 sq.ft. the building is only in 10000 sq.ft. and the remaining 40000
sq.ft. is lying vacant, which is sufficient for the Institution to accommodate
the playground for the School. It is further contended by the petitioner that
as per the lease deed, the Corporation is at liberty to terminate the lease at
any time for its use and occupation. Further, the respondent is in arrears of
Rs.37,88,491/- towards use and occupation from 01.04.1989 to 31.03.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
After giving proper notice under the Act, the eviction order has been passed
by the Estate Officer.
6. The main grounds raised by the respondent School before the Court
below is that the Act is not applicable and the subject property is not
required for bonafide use of the Corporation and the alleged arrears for use
and occupation is highly imaginary.
7. The Trial Court by relying on the decision of Suhas H.Pophale vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited and its Estate Officer reported in
(2014) 4 SCC 657 and held that the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 itself is not applicable to the disputed
premises. Further, with regard to the second point it held that the
Corporation has not stated briefly as to for what purpose the land is required
by them and by simply stating that the land is required for own purpose,
eviction cannot be ordered. Thus, the Trial Court allowed the CMA.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments on both sides and gone
through the entire materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The property admeasuring 32 grounds was originally leased out to
the respondent School Committee and out of 32 grounds, 25 grounds were
sold out to the School and in the remaining 7 grounds, the School
Committee is continuing as lessee, are admitted facts. As per the respondent
School, the actual rent payable is only a sum of Rs.48/- per year. It is their
contention that amount has been paid till 2006 and subsequently, the
Corporation did not receive the rent.
10. On careful perusal of the materials available on record, it appears
that the lease deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent
School for 32 grounds in the year 1947. Subsequently, the sale deed was
executed on 02.01.1963 for 25 grounds of land and the remaining 7 grounds
of land was leased out to the respondent. As such it is clear that the
respondent has been continuing as lessee from 1947. As seem from the the
above facts, it came to understand that the respondent entered into lease with
the petitioner Corporation prior to 1975. Therefore, the finding of the
Appellate Court on deriving the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
Suhas H.Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and its Estate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Officer (as stated supra) that the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1975 is not applicable to the disputed
premises as the said Act is not retrospective effect, needs no interference of
this Court. The Appellate Court also considered the guidelines issued by the
Central Government, which were issued to avoid bias/selective
implementation of use of provisions of Tamil Nadu Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 by the authorities and held
that the said guidelines applies to the State Legislation i.e., Tamil Nadu
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1975 and for the
case on hand also.
11. Besides this as admittedly, the respondent is running a School
aided by the State Government. The learned counsel for the respondent has
placed a statement of students strength for the year 2023-24. According to
that, 525 students are studying in the said School. On perusal of the
statement of the particulars of the students, it discloses that most of the
students, i.e., more than 95% of the students belong to marginalised section
of the Society, i.e., S.C., M.B.C., and B.C. and minorities. It is an admitted
fact that as per the education policy of the State and Central Governments,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
every educational institution should have a play ground for the benefit of the
students.
12. Engaging in games and sports help students inculcate discipline
and self-confidence. Participating in games and sports help relive stress and
sharpen the minds of students. Sports instill the spirit of teamwork and
sportiveness which will further be helpful in the future life of the students.
Children should be encouraged to participate in games and sports from a
young age to strengthen their bodies and minds.
13. Without playgrounds and sports infrastructure, students are
deprived of the facilities to participate in sports. The lack of professional
infrastructure, training and financial support is reflected in the substandard
performance of our country on international platforms. Provision of
playgrounds in schools and education institutions is necessary. Moral,
infrastructural and financial support should be provided to promote the
participation of youth in sports. Given the right facilities, India's youth has
the potential to thrive on international platforms and establish our country as
a global leader.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. In the present case, the respondent is contending that 7 grounds of
land is required for playground for the benefit of students studying in the
School. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner Corporation intends to develop a playground in the said
7 grounds of land to accommodate the local youths to utilise it as a
playground. If the intention of the petitioner is to develop the land as
playground for the benefit of neighbouring local youths, the said land can be
alienated to the respondent School on payment of market price or on
executing a lease in favour of the School for the benefit of the students
studying in the School, who belong to poor and marginal sections of the
Society, to encourage them to participate in games and sports activities. The
petitioner may have number of vacant lands in the surrounding areas to
develop them as playground for the benefit of local youths, but 7 grounds of
land which is the subject matter in the present case is part and parcel of the
total of 32 grounds of land. It was originally allotted to the respondent
School and the 7 grounds of land is situated besides the 25 grounds of land
sold to the respondent School by the petitioner Corporation. It is very much
useful for utilising it as a playground for the benefit of the students studying
in the said School.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. As seen from the above, it is established that Tamil Nadu Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1975 is not applicable
to the present case and the petitioner failed to establish the requirements of
the said land for any bonafide requirement. As such this Court is of the
considered view that the Appellate Court had considered all aspects
elaborately and passed a valid and reasoned order and as such, there is no
reason to interfere into the same.
16. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Court is confirmed and the
present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.09.2024
pvs
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
The Principal Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
pvs
Pre-delivery Order in
26.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
