M R S RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF EX ERVICEMEN WELFARE DISTRICT SOLDIERS SAILORS AND AIRMEN BOARDTIRUCHIRAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, herein seeks a writ of Mandamus from this Court restraining the respondents from taking possession of premises No. 17 in Williams Road, Tiruchirapalli except in accordance with law.

(2.) The circumstances under which the above prayer has been made may briefly be stated: The said property belonged to the third respondent and the administration and management of the property is vested in the second respondent and the income there from is spent for the welfare of the Ex-Servicemen. no said premises has been originally leased out to the petitioner, in the year 1974 and the Petitioner continued to be in possession of the said premises as a lessee till 9-10-1981. By a notice dated 8-8-1981 the respondents requesting the petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises within two months from the date of receipt of the notice on the expiry of the lease period on 9-l0-1981. The petitioner sent a reply stating that the lease may be renewed in view of the heavy investments made by him on the property. By a letter dated 16-91981 the petitioner prayed for the renewal of the lease offering to pay 15 % more than the original rent of Ra. 5,158 per month. However, the second respondent was not willing to renew the lease but published a notice stating that an auction will be held on 6-10-1981 for lease of the said property for the period from 10-10-1981 to 9-10-1983.

(3.) At that stage the petitioner filed a writ petition, W. P. No. 9736 of 1981 for the issue of a writ of mandamus to prevent the auction from taking place. However, the petitioner later withdrew the same. The petitioner continued to be in possession even after 9-10-1981. At the auction which was held on 6-10-1981 the highest bid was for a monthly rent of Rs. 20,360 for a period of two years from 10-10-1981 to 9-10-1983, which is nearly four times the rent the petitioner has been paying for the same premises. As per the conditions of the auction sale held on 6-10-1981, possession of the building has to be handed over to the new lessee on 10-10-1981, and as such a notice dated 6-10-1981 asking the petitioner to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession of the same was affixed on the outer door of Kanchana Hotel as the petitioner was absent. The petitioner, however, did not band over possession of the premises as called upon in the notice dated 6-10-1981. On 10-10-1981 the respondents are said to have acted in an arbitrary and high-handed manner in sealing the premises with the help of Policemen by use of force and threat. It is at this stage the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition stating that the respondents have no power to take forcible possession of the premises except under, due process of law and that the sealing of the premises with the help of the police when articles worth about five lakhs of rupees are still in the Premises and the conduct of the respondents in attempting to take forcible possession of the property is illegal. Ac. cording to the petitioner, the respondents by use of brutal force with the help of police had smashed the name boards, broke open the petitioner's locks and placed seats on the door of the premises when the petitioner has not removed his articles and vacated the premises. The said action of the respondents, according to the petition, is without authority of law. The petitioner's case is that even assuming that his possession after the expiry of the lease is not legal, the respondents cannot take forcible possession without recourse to law and that their action is violative of the principles of natural justice and therefore the respondents should be restrained by the issue of a writ of mandamus from taking possession of the property by force without due process of law.