K U MUTHUKUMARESAN Vs. ASST COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R. Thamodaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Manoharan, the learned government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT is submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing No. 17 (New No. 35), Thayar Sahib Street, anna Salai, Chennai-2. The said property belongs to the petitioner and his brother. In the ground floor of the property there are two godowns, one of which is let out on lease to Indo National Limited and the other to Sachedeva road Lines Pvt. Ltd. The first and second floors of the property are occupied by tenants. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not running a lodging house and is not letting out any portion of the premises on daily basis, as alleged by the respondent.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order, dated NIL, has been passed by the respondent without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.