R SUSHILA Vs. CORPORATION OF CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks issuance of mandamus directing the respondent to cut and remove the two trees standing in front of the petitioner's house bearing Door No. 40, Jermiah Road, Vepery, Chennai-7, and thus render justice.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is said that the petitioner is residing at Door No. 40, Jermiah Road, Vepery, Chennai-7. The house has a compound wall. Abutting the compound wall, in the pavement, there are two trees in front of petitioner's house. It is said that the roots of the trees have gone into the sewerage and drainage system in the street maintained by the respondent and also into the sewerage and drainage line connecting petitioner's house to the main line, and this affects the free flow of sewerage and drainage water from petitioner's house to the main line and also the running of sewerage and drainage water in the main line. It is further said that the trees have grown projecting towards the compound wall of petitioner's house and subsequently towards her house. According to the petitioner, the roots have damaged the compound wall and also the main structure. It is said that the trees are standing in such a way that they may fall at any time on petitioner's compound wall as well as on her house and damage the same. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has a public and statutory duty to maintain the streets, pavements and drainage and sewerage system. It is said that under Section 259 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, the respondent has a duty to cut out any tree or branch of a tree deemed by him to be likely to fall and thereby danger any person or structure. There is also a common-law duty on the part of the respondent to see that the nuisance or danger is averted. It is further said that the petitioner is living in constant danger and she bona fide apprehends that the trees may fall on the compound wall and the residential building, causing danger to her life and property. There is also a constant threat to the pedestrians. Petitioner wrote to the respondent several letters, the last of which is dated 16-10-1997, making a request to cut and remove the trees in question. But the respondent did not respond to any of those letters. Therefore, petitioner issued a legal notice on 10-11-1997. But, as usual, respondent remained silent. It is under the above circumstances, petitioner has come to this Court for the reliefs stated above.

(3.) When the writ petition came for admission on 8-1-1998, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Corporation took notice and sought an adjournment for filing counter. It is seen that except for request of adjournment, respondent is not serious in filing counter. On 27-2-1998, I informed learned Standing Counsel for respondent that counter, if any, should be filed on or before 16-3-1998, and that no adjournment will be granted thereafter. The respondent has not filed counter till date.