CHAIRMAN CHENNAI PORT TRUST CHENNAI Vs. BALAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the orders of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai setting aside the order of the Estate Officer, the present revisions have been filed.

(2.) The respondents were during the year 1987 was inducted into the premises of the second petitioner as a licensee at the rate of Rs.65.00 per sq.m. per annum. License period was for a period of 10 years. Thereafter, it appears that the second revision petitioner had enhanced the license fee from Rs.65.00 sq.m. per annum to Rs.80.00 per sq.m. per annum. Thereafter, it appears that the license fee was enhanced to Rs.120.00 per sq.m. per annum from May 2001 onwards. The same was challenged in WP.Nos.2443 and 22274 of 2005 by the respondents and this Court directed the respondents to approach the civil court. Therefore, the respondent in CRP.No.1020 of 2025 has been filed to seeking not to disturb their peaceful possession except by due process of law and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from collecting the enhanced rent and for mandatory injunction for fixing rent taking into consideration the amenities and infrastructure available and for other reliefs. The said suit was partly decreed granting permanent injunction not to disturb by the respondent except by way of following due process of law, appeal in A.S.No.42 of 2021 was confirmed and second appeal is filed before this Court. Similarly, the respondent in CRP.No.986 of 2025 filed a suit in O.S.No.4754 of 2013 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai seeking not to disturb their peaceful possession except by due process of law and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from collecting the enhanced rent and for mandatory injunction for fixing rent taking into consideration the amenities and infrastructure available and for other reliefs. The said suit was originally dismissed for default on 30/10/2018. The respondent has filed applications for condoning the delay in filing restoration petition and to restore the suit. The Trial Court has condoned the delay and the case is posted for arguments for restoration petition.

(3.) Once again, writ petitions in WP.Nos.23398 of 2012 and 8176 of 2003 were filed challenging charging of electricity, service charge and they were disposed. Against which, writ appeals were filed in W.A.No.1765 and 1762 of 2013. This Court vide order dtd. 1/4/2014 directed that the mortgage to be created in respect of superstructure and no objection for getting service connection from TANGEDCO. Hence, mortgage deeds were executed and subsequently, civil suits were filed for discharging the mortgage and the same are pending. At this juncture, notices under Sec. 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were issued and the respondents appeared before the third respondent/Estate Officer. The Estate Officer vide orders dtd. 21/9/2022 and 10/4/2023 declared the petitioners as unauthorised occupants. Challenging the same, appeal were filed.