T K SATHYANARAYANAN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions had been filed, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to re-allot shop Nos. 5 and 4, in Door No. 98, situated at Sannathi Street, Thirukazhukundram Town Panchayat, Kancheepuram District, till the other lessees in the same door number are evicted. It has been stated that the petitioners had been carrying on business, in Shop Nos. 5 and 4, respectively, in Door No. 98, situated at Sannathi Street, Thirukazhukundram Town Panchayat, Kancheepuram District, based on a lease agreement entered into with the second respondent. The said lease had continued till the year, 2008. Thereafter, the second respondent, by its letter, dated 4.1.2008, directed the petitioners to handover the vacant possession of the shop. The said order, dated 4.1.2008, had been challenged by the petitioners, in W.P. No. 7724 of 2008 and W.P. No. 7725 of 2008, respectively, before this Court. In view of the fact that the second respondent had decided to put up a new structure in the place in question, this Court, by orders, dated 25.8.2008, dismissed the said Writ Petitions and had directed the petitioners to handover possession of the shops to the second respondent, on or before, 30.9.2008. The orders, dated 25.8.2008, passed by this Court, in W.P. No. 7724 of 2008, and, W.P. No. 7725 of 2008, had been challenged by the petitioners, by way of Appeals, in W.A. No. 1143 of 2008, and, W.A. No. 1127 of 2008, before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, by its judgments, dated 7.10.2008, and 30.9.2008, had directed the petitioners to hand over vacant possession of the shops in question, to the second respondent, on 1.12.2008. Whileso, the other lessees of the adjacent shops, had filed a Suit, in O.S. No. 45 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirukazhukundram, seeking the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the second respondent from evicting them from the suit property. They had also obtained an order of injunction, in I.A. No. 115 of 2008, in O.S. No. 45 of 2008. Based on the said order of injunction, the other lessees had been allowed to continue to be in possession of the shops in question.

(2.) It has also been stated that the petitioners had filed civil suits, in O.S. Nos. 93 and 94 of 2008, before the District Munsif Court, Thirukazhukundram, seeking the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the second respondent from evicting the petitioners from the suit property, as prayed for by the other lessees of the shops in question. The said suits are pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirukazhukundram. Whileso, the petitioners had filed M.P. No. 2 of 2008, in W.A. No. 1143 of 2008, and M.P. No. 3 of 2008, in W.A. No. 1127 of 2008, respectively, seeking clarification of the judgments, dated 7.10.2008 and 30.9.2008, with regard to the other lessees of the shops in question. The Division Bench, by its judgment, dated 14.10.2009, had dismissed M.P. No. 2 of 2008, in W.A. No. 1143 of 2008. But, in M.P. No. 3 of 2008, in W.A. No. 1127 of 2008, the Division Bench had made it clear that the State Government should also deal with other shop keepers in a similar fashion, and that there should not be any discrimination. However, the State Government had not initiated any action against the other lessees, till date, in spite of the observations made by the Division Bench, in M.P. No. 3 of 2008, in W.A. No. 1127 of 2008. In such circumstances, the petitioners had preferred the present writ petitions, before this Court, praying that they should be treated on par with the other lessees of the shops in question and that they should be given possession of the shops, until the other lessees are evicted, as per the observations made by the Division Bench, in M.P. No. 3 of 2008, in W.A. No. 1127 of 2008. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the other lessees could not be evicted, as per the observations made by the Division Bench, in M.P. No. 3 of 2008, in W.A. No. 1127 of 2008, due to the pendency of the Civil Suit, in O.S. No. 45 of 2008, filed by them. However, she also submitted that the Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P. (PD) No. 2664 of 2009, is pending before this Court. She has further submitted that necessary steps have been taken to get appropriate orders in the Civil Revision Petition and in the Original Suit, in order to evict the other lessees, to enable the second respondent to construct a new building, after demolishing the dilapidated shops, occupied by the lessees. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the relief prayed by the petitioners, in the present writ petitions, cannot be granted. It is also noted that the Division Bench, in M.P. No. 3 of 2008, in W.A. No. 1127 of 2008, has made it clear that the other lessees should also be treated in a similar manner, like the petitioners herein. Moreover, the petitioners are not in a position to show that they have a right to occupy the shops in question. As such, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps., are closed.