D. RAMESH Vs. COMMISSIONER, USILAMPATTI MUNICIPALITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the impugned orders passed by the first respondent, dated 15.09.2014, the petitioners have come forward with these Writ Petitions. Since the facts and circumstances of the case are one the same, they are taken up together and decided by a common order. In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have stated that the respondents are attempting to take away the shops allotted to them without following the due process of law even though, the lease period granted to them comes to an end only on 30.09.2016. Originally, the lease period granted got expired on 31.03.2011. Thereafter, they sought extension as per G.O. Ms. No. 92 Municipal Administration cum Water Supply Department, dated 30.07.2007. Accordingly, they were given extension also till 31.03.2014 on the revised rate of rent of Rs. 500/- per month. Thereafter, again they made a representation on 31.12.2013 to extend the period of lease for three years from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2017, but the same was not considered by the respondents. Therefore, they filed a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P. (MD). Nos. 5547 to 5556 of 2014. Those Writ Petitions were disposed of, on 17.07.2014, by this Court with a direction to the respondents therein to consider the representations of the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. They have also obtained water connection in the year 2006.

(2.) In the meanwhile, the Municipality passed a Resolution in No. 404 dated 20.06.2014 for cancelling the lease granted in Resolution Nos. 153 and 154 dated 28.09.2007 and to conduct a fresh tender and to that effect, a Resolution in No. 404 came to be passed cancelling the lease granted in Resolution Nos. 153 and 154 dated 28.09.2007. The said action was challenged vide Writ Petition in W.P. (MD). No. 13279 of 2014 and subsequently, the said Writ Petition was also allowed. While so, the first respondent through his proceedings dated 15.04.2014 decided to demolish the shops in which the petitioners are occupying. Aggrieved over the action of the respondents, about 84 persons filed a Writ Petition in W.P. (MD). No. 5669 of 2012 to restrain the respondents from evicting without due process of law. According to the petitioner, an order of interim injunction was granted on 24.04.2012 and the same is pending. Pending the same, these Writ Petitions have been filed.

(3.) The Municipality has filed a detailed counter affidavit and vacate stay petition in which it is categorically stated that the respondent has never granted a lease either to the petitioners or anybody else and it is only a licence to the then occupants in the open area to vend (tharaikadai). Therefore, the version of the petitioners that lease has been granted to them is misconstrued. The erstwhile Municipal Chairman and its Councilors have misunderstood the G.O. Ms. No. 92 Municipal Administration cum Water Supply Department, dated 30.07.2007. When the petitioners made a representation dated 31.12.2013 to extend the period of licence for further period of three years, the petitioners were called upon to produce the relevant documents, namely, the original licence or lease, as the case may be, as many of the persons, according to the Municipality, who are now occupying the shops in question is not the original owner at all. The premises in question has been sublet to a third party without obtaining the prior permission from the Municipality. They have also put up constructions without the permission of the Municipality. Therefore, they are not entitled to the relief as sought for in the Writ Petitions.