SURANA AND SURANA Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following are the allegations succinctly, as per the petition under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971: the property covered by the proceedings is spreading to an extent of 2757 Sq. ft. in the first floor of National Insurance Building in Door No. 224, N. S. C. Bose Road, Chennai-1. The said building belongs to the first respondent and it is a 'public Premises' under Section 2 (e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' ). It was leased out to the petitioner for a period of three (3) years on a monthly rent of Rs. 37,220/- (at Rs. 13. 50 per sq. ft. Per month) for carrying on legal profession. The joint measurement was made on 30. 4. 2004 and 2757 sq. ft. was offered, a floor plan was also drawn accordingly and the same was sent to the respondent along with draft lease agreement for execution and registration. The keys of the premises were handed over to the petitioners on 8. 5. 2004. Even before executing and registering the lease agreement, the petitioner started carrying out structural alteration in the premises, in variance to contract. On 14. 12. 2004 the first respondent inspected the petitioner's premises. It was found that the petitioner had unauthorisedly taken and encroached upon some more area pertaining to another tenant and he had taken a sketch of the area admeasuring 3216 Sqft instead of 2757 Sqft. Again the first respondent was required to send floor plan of the area occupied by him, by a letter dated 15. 12. 2005 and required to execute lease deed before 30. 12. 2005 and informed that on failure, the entire offer shall stand withdrawn. Despite the opportunity given, the petitioner failed to submit the floor plan nor got the lease registered. Hence, on 2. 1. 2006 the first respondent sent notice giving 15 days period intimating termination of tenancy and calling upon to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises. The petitioner acknowledged the notice on 4. 1. 2006 and the notice period expired on 19. 1. 2006. He is an unauthorised occupant and hence he may be evicted by an order of eviction by the Estate Officer.

(2.) AFTER filing of the above said application before the Estate Officer, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 5 of the Act, requesting the said authority to respect the below mentioned prayers:

(3.) IN the affidavit appended to this petition, the petitioner has mentioned that he has become a lawful tenant under the respondent-LIC in the month of May 2004 and he has spent more than Rs. 50 lakhs to carry out the work of interior decoration, furnishing, etc. , as required by any law firm of international standards. But the LIC and its officers, illegally, unlawfullly, high-handedly, maliciously and untenably sought to withdraw the allotment, refused to receive the rent. The correspondences exchanged between the parties would show the illegal and high-handed way, in which LIC acted.