Begin typing your search...
Shop owner rapped for cheating rent controller, lok adalat
A lot of time and effort goes into crafting laws. But notwithstanding this, there also emerges in equal measure certain ingenious litigants who exploit the legal system for executing illegal acts. The HC was witness to such a situation wherein the legal system was taken for a ride right under its nose.
By
migrator
migrator
Chennai
Justice P N Prakash while allowing a criminal original petition moved by a tenant, who was evicted by an illegal process, observed “The shop, was overnight evicted by a process, which apparently appears legal. But, on lifting the veil, a sinister hydra is found hiding underneath. The conspirators have taken the rent controller, Lok Adalat and the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for a ride.” If “X” illegally dispossesses “Y” with goondas, the remedy for “Y” is to file a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Here, the illegal dispossession has been effected under the cover of court orders. In other words, the court system has been used to commit a gross illegality,” the judge added.
As per the case, in a partnership dispute, one Anand Kumar Jawahar moved a City Civil Court and obtained an ex-parte order against removing him from the said shop, where he sold garments. But not withstanding this, the erstwhile partners’ K M Suresh, V. S Jayaraman, and the property owner Shanthi Meenakshi had different plans. Accordingly, Suresh posing as the property owner moved a rent control proceeding before the XVI Small Causes Court arraying Jayaraman as the tenant.
Subsequently, at the Lok Adalat, Jayaraman handed over the keys of the premises. This resulted in the Lok Adalat deciding in Suresh’s favour. Subsequently, Suresh moved an affidavit before the small cases court saying that he was unable to open the shop with the keys given by Jayaraman. Based on this and the bailiffs repot, an execution order was obtained.
Using this, Jawahar was thrown out of the premises with police help. The judge on holding that the acts of the Suresh, Jayaran and Shanthi Meenakshi , prima facie, amounted to criminal contempt, said “The HC, being a Constitutional authority, under whose superintendence fell the rent controller and Lok Adalat, cannot be made a mute spectator and turn a Nelson’s eye to the said happenings, lest it should embolden such manipulators of the legal system to continue with impunity, their nefarious activities.”
Plea on Own Your Housing Scheme closed
The HC has closed a PIL challenging the “own your housing scheme” formulated by the Housing and Urban Development Department in 2011 for the benefit of the Government officials/ employees. The first bench, comprising CJ Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R. Mahadevan, said “Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961 envisages and enables execution of such schemes by the Board in terms of Section 35(2) of the said act, where the Government may transfer land to the Board for execution of a Housing /improvement scheme and it cannot be said that the scheme extended for the benefit of the Government servants is bad in law.” Advocate P Pugalenthi, who sought to assail the decision made by the Government vide the Government order and quash the same, contended that TNHB’s mandate was to enable the shelterless to have houses, but the scheme announced was utterly contrary to it. He also pointed out that there can be any number of Special Schemes for Government servants but there cannot be a scheme for conferring largesse on the Government servants in the form of plots/flats/houses who already own houses. He also submitted that “the GO does not contain a stipulation to such effect that those who are already benefited are not eligible for the scheme which is unfair, unreasonable and is contrary to the very spirit of the scheme.”
PIL against construction in Kalakshetra Colony quashed
The Madras HC has dismissed a PIL seeking to quash an order issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Department permitting the construction of flats on the sea side of Coastal Road, Kalakshetra Colony.
The first bench, comprising CJ Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R. Mahadevan said, “The first ground on which the petitioner challenged the GO that olive ridley turtles are threatened due to unplanned development is unsustainable as the impugned construction is separated from the beach by other pre-existing properties which are demarcated by compound walls, as revealed in the sketch of the area.” The petitioner, Shanthi Krishnan, vice president, Kalakshetra Colony Welfare Association, had challenged the approval for construction on plot numbers 1, 2, 6 and 7 and forbear from putting up any construction on the seaward side of Coastal Road, Kalakshetra Colony. She had contended that the construction was not permissible under the Coastal Zone Management Authority (CZMA) guidelines and that the GO deserves to be set aside. It was further contended that the Government had failed to note the irreversible harm that would be caused to the environment by permitting the construction and it failed to take note that these plots are prohibited for construction based on CRZ notification. However, the bench dismissed the plea after holding that “the adjacent buildings were granted approval only after the CRZ notification, which was never challenged.
Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!
Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!
Click here for iOS
Click here for Android
Next Story
