A JAYA Vs. COMMISSIONER CHENNAI CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner let out her premises to the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner the fourth respondent, has made several unlawful structural alterations in addition to the committing of theft of electricity and running an illegal bar in the premises. It does not appear to be the first round of litigation in which the petitioner has got involved because of the fourth respondent.

(2.) On 21.3.2002, the petitioner has sent a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 bringing to their notice the various irregularities alleged to have been committed by the fourth respondent. The respondents after receiving the representation, have chosen to issue notice to the petitioner calling upon her to pay a fine not exceeding Rs.500/- and to a further fine per day during which the offence is proved to have been continued after the first day.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when it is the petitioner, who has brought to the notice of the respondents 1 to 3 the illegal construction put up by the fourth respondent, it is ironic that she should be asked to pay fine for the same.