M. Mohamed Ibrahim vs The Commissioner, … on 10 November, 2003

0
79
Madras High Court
M. Mohamed Ibrahim vs The Commissioner, … on 10 November, 2003
Author: D Murugesan
Bench: D Murugesan

ORDER

D. Murugesan, J.

1. Though the W.P.M.P. No. 67532 of 2002 is listed, by consent of parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal.

2. The shop bearing no. 29/1197 in the municipal market belonging to the respondent-municipality was originally leased out to one Mr. K.S. Jacob. It is alleged that the said Jacob had put up partition and made 10 shops and sublet the same to 10 tenants. On the violation of the conditions of lease, the respondent-municipality has passed the impugned order cancelling the lease. Questioning the same, the petitioner claiming to be the sub-lessee of Mr. K.S. Jacob is before this Court.

3. Even according to the petitioner, the shop was originally leased out to the said K.S. Jacob and he became a tenant under him from the month of August, 1997. Sub-letting is one of the grounds on which eviction could be made. Though the petitioner became the sub-tenant, he paid the lease rent only in the name of K.S. Jacob. The municipality was not aware of the fact that the original lessee has sub-let the shop in favour of the petitioner. On coming to know of the same, the present impugned action has been taken. The only grievance of the petitioner is that before the lease was cancelled, the petitioner was not given opportunity, not even the lessee. Question of grant of opportunity does not arise, as the petitioner admittedly is a sub-tenant. In fact it is brought to my notice that the impugned order was communicated and served only on the lessee K.S. Jacob, but he has not questioned the same. It is the stand of the respondent-municipality that the possession was also taken on 18.12.2002. The same was disputed by Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is still in possession. For the purpose of adjudicating the issue as to the validity of the impugned order, suffice for this Court to hold that the petitioner who is a sub-tenant has no right to question the order of cancellation made against the lessee/tenant. Hence, the writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.

4. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to approach the respondent-municipality for recognising him as tenant afresh and if such request is made, the same shall be considered by the respondent-municipality duly taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner had been carrying on the business in the shop in question from August, 1997 for over a period of five years. So far as the possession is concerned, as there is a rival dispute, I am not inclined to pass any orders and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil Court for appropriate orders as he has already filed a suit in O.S.No.270 of 2002 pending on the file of the District Munsif, Udhagamandalam.

5. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 67532 of 2002 is also dismissed.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *