@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Chandru, J.@mdashHeard Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. A. Jenasenan, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner in W.P. Nos. 18710 of 2009 and 18768 to 18782 of 2009; Mr. J. Karunanithi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.
No. 18783 of 2009 and Mr. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General leading Mr. G.T. Subramanian, learned Counsel appearing for the
first respondent - Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai in all these petitions.
2. This batch of writ petitions arises out of a common order passed by the second respondent - Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated
17.8.2009 in various appeals filed by the petitioners. The petitioners are all carrying on business in timber and are having their timber depot in
Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-79 coming under Division 51, Zone V, V.O.C. Nagar area. The petitioners were issued with the Notice of Eviction
by the first respondent - Commissioner and Estate Officer, Corporation of Chennai, dated 14.5.2009 asking them to be evicted from the premises
occupied by them.
3. The names of the petitioners, with whom the premises were given, the names of the original lessees, the lease period and the survey numbers
including the extent in square feet along with the door numbers are tabulated in paragraph 6 of the Appellate Court''s order, viz., the second
respondent''s order. It is admitted by both sides that the property belonged to the first respondent Corporation and the petitioners occupied the
said premises not because of any direct lease given to them by the Corporation, but by the earlier lessees, from whom they obtained the permission
to carry on their business. But, however, it is the case of the petitioners that they have been assessed to tax and the Corporation is collecting the
licence fee from the petitioners only and, therefore, their occupation was not illegal. While so, the petitioners were issued with the Eviction Notice
u/s 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Act 40 of 1971) (for short, ''Public Premises Act''). When the
notice was given to the petitioners, they had contended that they have been paying the lease amount either in the name of the original lessees or in
their own names. Even though there is no lease deed executed by the Corporation, the fact that they remitted the lease amount and accepted by
the Corporation, will show that there is an arrangement between them and the Corporation, and they are also enjoying various public utilities, such
as, telephone, electricity connection, water and drainage facilities and they are also paying the consumption charges. They are doing lawful business
in the said premises and for carrying on the business, they have also obtained licence u/s 287 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act,
1919 (for short, ''CCMC Act'').
4. u/s 287 of the CCMC Act, the first respondent Commissioner is the Licensing Authority and in terms of Section 287(5)(b)(i), before granting
licence, the suitability of the place in respect of which the licence applied for will have to be gone into by the Licensing Authority and having
granted the licence, they cannot be evicted. When they have failed in their attempt in not convincing the first respondent-Commissioner, who is the
Licensing Authority, they moved the second respondent - Appellate Authority, by filing appeals, u/s 9 of the Public Premises Act.
5. The Appellate Authority, viz., the second respondent, after numbering their appeals and after hearing both sides, passed the impugned order.
The second respondent has held that the petitioners are not direct lessees and u/s 75 of the CCMC Act, the Commissioner of Chennai
Corporation has no power to grant any lease in their favour. In case any sanction is to be made for executing such lease, it has to be done by the
Commissioner only with the sanction of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation either for grant or extension of lease and, therefore,
in the matter of grant of lease or licence, there cannot be any presumption and in the present case in terms of Section 75, they have no lease in their
favour. Once the petitioners are not lessees, then any amount paid by them is not a lease rent, but it can only be a payment other than rent.
6. The second respondent - Appellate Authority also found that in the absence of lease, the provisions of the Public Premises Act will come into
operation and the petitioners are under the unauthorised occupation in terms of Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act. Therefore, once they are
termed as ''''unauthorised occupants"", the recourse to the provisions of the Public Premises Act is valid and since the order has been passed only
after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners, the order passed by the Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer of the Corporation is not liable to
be interfered with. It is this order of the Appellate Authority, which is under challenge in these writ petitions.
7. Pending admission of these writ petitions, this Court by an interim order, dated 11.9.2009, granted interim stay after ordering notice to the
respondents. On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed their counter in all these writ petitions dated 23.10.2009.
8. Apart from the application of the Act, in the counter affidavit, it was stated that the entire area abutting the Basin Bridge Main Road is a
Corporation land comprised in various Survey Numbers and it is required for a public welfare scheme, viz., for construction of a Fly Over in Mint
Junction at Basin Bridge Road and Old Jail Road, which is a long time request of the residents of North Chennai. This alone will ease the traffic in
that area and, therefore, the land under occupation of the petitioners is basically required for the construction of the Fly Over. It is also stated that
the petitioners were given notice as early as on 24.9.2001 and directed them to pay the arrears of land rent payable by them. But at that time there
was no proposal for construction of the bridge in the said area. Only in the year 2008, due to increase in traffic vehicle movement and in the
interest of larger public, the proposal of bridge is felt very essential and required for the free movement of traffic in the North Chennai area. It is
also stated that whatever amount collected from the petitioners was not any rent, but only a damage fee for use and occupation, the petitioners
being occupiers of the Corporation land in question.
9. Mr. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent Corporation has produced the proceedings of the
Commissioner issued pursuant to the Resolution No. 312/2006 in Subject No. 56, dated 31.8.2006, and has stated that till such time, the lands
were re-possessed by taking lawful steps, the damage fee for use and occupation of the land can be collected and the Commissioner was
authorised about the same.
10. Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in assailing the impugned order, contended that the
possession of the petitioners'' land cannot be said to be unauthorised, the petitioners having been granted licence u/s 287 of the CCMC Act and
the Commissioner having gone into the question of suitability of the land u/s 287(5), and, therefore, there was no necessity to evict them from the
premises. He has also submitted that the resort to the Public Premises Act can be made only in terms of Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act.
The said provision, which defines ''''unauthorised occupation'''' reads as follows:
Unauthorised occupation"", in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such
occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any
other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises, has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever.
11. Therefore, inasmuch as the first respondent is collecting the amount from the petitioners, and they are also enjoying the possession of the
premises with all other facilities, the resort to the provisions of the Act cannot be permitted. Without prejudice to the above submissions, he has
submitted that since the petitioners have been carrying on business in the said area, they may be given an alternative accommodation and until such
time, they should not be evicted from the said premises.
12. Per contra, Mr. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General leading the learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. G.T. Subramanian,
submitted that since the second respondent - Appellate Authority has dealt with the submission regarding the unauthorised occupation, this issue is
answered against the petitioners and there is no ground made out warranting interference with the said finding given by the Appellate Authority. He
has also referred to the proceedings issued by the Commissioner, in terms of Section 4(1) of the Public Premises Act, wherein the purpose for
eviction has been clearly set out and in the operative portion of the said proceedings, it was stated that the premises is urgently required for the
larger interest of general public for the proposed construction of Fly Over at Mint Junction comprising of Basin Bridge Road and Old Jail Road
and the proposed over bridge will be utilised by the general public. Therefore, the petitioners were directed to vacate the said public land and hand
over the vacant land to the first respondent. The said order came to be passed after notice to the petitioners and also after perusing the documents
produced in their favour.
13. With reference to the documents produced by the petitioners, the Estate Officer has stated that the documents produced by them are in no
way connected with the Chennai Corporation and it is not binding on the Corporation and the business indulged by the petitioners was not
sanctioned by the Corporation. It was stated that the original lessees were different persons and the lease was not further extended and the
petitioners were not permitted to continue in possession. The petitioners, without any lease or licence granted by the Corporation, have
unauthorisedly made various documents, transactions and are occupying and enjoying the Corporation public land. Thereafter, the learned
Additional Advocate General also referred to the provisions of Section 75 of the CCMC Act, wherein the Commissioner cannot dispose of any
Corporation property, the value of which exceeds Rs. 5000/- and that too it can be done only for a period of 12 months by way of sale or
exchange. In all other respects, the matter will have to be reported to the Standing Committee and either the Standing Committee or the Council,
alone can transact such property depending on the conditions proposed in Sections 75(2) and 75(3) of the CCMC Act. Therefore, the petitioners
cannot set up any document contrary to the provisions of the Act and there cannot be an estoppel against the statute.
14. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that an identical case came up for consideration in respect of the Corporation itself
before a Division Bench of this Court presided over by A.P. Shah, C.J. (as he then was) in W.A. No. 1369 of 2005 and other cases, dated
31.3.2006. Reliance was placed to the contentions raised and recorded by the Division Bench in paragraph 37 of the order, wherein similar
contentions were raised. In answer to the contentions raised, in paragraph 13, the Division Bench has held as follows:
13. ...Therefore, assuming without granting that the petitioner derived any right under the aforesaid documents, it shall not continue anymore since it
is clear that the land is required for a public purpose, viz., widening of the road. That apart, the documents themselves restrict the right given to the
lessees there under to one year only and that time has expired long ago. Therefore, the petitioner can claim no right under these documents. The
fact that the property taxes have been received from the petitioner and amounts received towards illegal use and damages will not, by themselves,
confer any right on the petitioner to continue in the premises.
15. Therefore, he contends that the petitioners, having lost their appeal before the Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer and also before the Appellate
Authority, cannot have a further round of litigation and the public interest will suffer if the stay order is further continued.
16. In the light of the legal provisions and the binding precedents shown, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions and accordingly all
the writ petitions will stand dismissed. The interim order will stand vacated. Whether the petitioners are entitled to have any alternative
accommodation or not, is a matter which the Corporation alone can decide and it is needless to state that if any such representation is received, it
is open to the respondent Corporation to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
