I VELUTHAI Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMANDANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 4609 of 1998 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the judgment dated 4. 9. 2001 in C. M. A. No. 106 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras reversing the interim injunction granted in I. A. No. 10676 of 1998 by the V Assistant Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the revision petitioner/plaintiff except under due process of law, by allowing the appeal.

(2.) THE revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O. S. No. 4609 of 1998 for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property except under due process of law claiming that as per orders dated 25. 7. 1993 and 1. 10. 1993 issued by the respondents/defendants her deceased husband M. Irulandi, who was Ex-Service man, was allotted an open varandah for construction and running of Photocopier/pco/std Shop at Head Quarters, ATNKK and G. Area, (AWWA - Army Wives Welfare Association), viz. , 300 square feet, situate in front of AWWA, Fort Saint George, Chennai-600 009 and the electrical connections thereon (the suit property), which was run by her husband till his life time. On his death, this shop was re-allotted with 100 square feet in addition as per letter dated 19. 2. 1995 and she has been running the shop under the name and style of M/s. Lucky Xerox and Telecom Services in xerox copying, telecommunication services and job typing for the past more than three years after the death of her husband. She has been regularly paying rent for the varandah place allotted and electricity charges to the defendants without default. Whileso, the first defendant sent a letter on 17. 7. 1998, directing her to vacate the shop on or before 19. 7. 1998 positively. Hence, apprehending that she will be dispossessed by the defendants, the suit has been filed on 22. 7. 1998.

(3.) THE revision petitioner/plaintiff along with the suit filed injunction petition I. A. No. 10676 of 1998 praying interim injunction. The petition was resisted by the respondents/defendants in the counter admitting the allotment of the open varandah (200 square feet) in front of Army Wives Welfare Association (AWWA) shop for photocopier (xerox) and PCO/std by the President AWWA, Chennai as per order dated 17. 7. 1993. On that basis, the letters of intimation dated 25. 7. 1993 and 1. 10. 1993 were issued. The allotment was made to the husband of the revision petitioner/plaintiff purely on humanitarian grounds and as a welfare measure to rehabilitate a retired JCO, since he had no other job at that time and to maintain the family excepting his meager pension. On the death of her husband Irulandi, the revision petitioner made an application dated 7. 5. 1994 seeking permission to continue to run the said shop as her financial condition was not very sound. She was also permitted to run the said shop purely on humanitarian grounds by the President of AWWA. The premises being the property of Defence and declared as ancient monument under Ancient Monument Preservation Act by Archeological Survey of India and no construction is permitted. The institution of AWWA has since been disbanded and as such, any agreement with the said Association ceased to exist. As the premises were required for the use of troops and stores of Army, the notice to vacate was issued on 31. 5. 1997 and then another notice was issued on 25. 8. 1997 under Sub Section (1) and Clause (b) (ii) of Sub Section (2) of Section 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). Thereafter further notice was issued on 29. 9. 1997 under Sub Section (1) of Section 5 of the Act and they have been received by the revision petitioner, but the revision petitioner failed to appear in person. The revision petitioner is to pay heavy dues since January 1998 to the Telecom Department because of which the PCO connection has been disconnected and the revision petitioner is not providing PCO facilities to the Army personnels. The revision petitioner owns a personal house bearing door No. 12, Bharathi Nagar, 100 feet Road, Guindy, Chennai-32 and also land approximately 3 grounds at Velachery (Chennai ). She is also running another Xerox shop in Shanthi Theatre Complex, Mount Road, Chennai-5 and she is well off. Reasonable opportunity was provided to the revision petitioner, but she failed to avail the same by not submitting any objection to the notice issued under Section 5 of the Act. The revision petitioner also defaulted in payment to the Telecom Department after receiving money from the public for the calls made and she has no legal right to run the shop on the Defence land.