SATVINDER KAUR Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The Petitioner, who claims to be a lawful tenant under the Respondents 1 and 2/corporation in respect of the property at No. 124, General Patters Road, Mount Road, Chennai - 600 002, has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order dated 10.03.2005 made in Petition No. 28 of 2004 on the file of the second Respondent, which was confirmed by the third Respondent/appellate authority in its order dated 26.04.2010 in C.M.A. No. 47 of 2005.

(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is a tenant in respect of the subject matter of the property for more than two decades. While so, the first Respondent initiated proceedings under Section 5 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction and Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the Petitioner by filing a petition No. 28 of 2004 before the second Respondent herein. Prior to filing of such a petition, the first Respondent issued a termination notice dated 27.07.2004 to the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner has committed default in payment of rent, interest and other charges from January 2003 and after issuance of the termination notice, the Petitioner has cleared the arrears of rent. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, even the alleged default mentioned in the termination notice is not correct in view of the fact that after the termination notice, the entire arrears have been paid and when once the arrears is paid and received by the corporation, the notice of termination does not have any force. Furthermore, in the termination notice dated 27.07.2004, no reason at all has been mentioned by the first Respondent for invoking the provisions of the Act. Further, subsequent to the notice of termination dated 27.07.2004, the Petitioner has been paying the rents regularly and when once the rent was paid and also accepted by the first Respondent, it is not open to the first Respondent to issue the notice to quit. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further contend that the second Respondent, without considering the aforesaid aspects has erroneously allowed the petition filed by the first Respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority, the third Respondent herein mainly on the ground that no reason at all has been assigned by the first Respondent to invoke the provisions of the Act and there is no need or necessity to issue the notice of termination dated 27.07.2004. It was further contended that the earlier default in payment of rent may not be a ground for evicting the Petitioner when once the Petitioner has paid the rents subsequently and it was also received by the corporation. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the third Respondent/appellate authority, without considering the above said facts has erroneously dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner, hence, the present writ petition has been filed.