P JAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of Writ Appeal Nos. 1367 to 1369 of 1999. The appellant-Ramachandran was admittedly the allottees of Shop No. 1. Sathya was the allottee in respect of Shop No. 2 while Jayakumar was the allottee in respect of Shop No. 3. These shops were allotted by allotment order dated 26-9-1972. The allotment order clearly stated that the shops were being leased out to the allottees for running a shop for a period of three years. The other condition was vide Cl. 3 of the allotment order that the shop should not be sub-let.

(2.) It was found during the inspection that there were some irregularities in respect of these three shops and, therefore, a notice came to be served to the three appellants. In that notice it was pointed out by the Board that though the shops were individually allotted to the three appellants, all the three shops were merged as one and one restaurant was being run by one Thiru S. Ramachandran, (probably the allottee of Shop No. 1). This amounted to sub-letting. The second respondent in the show cause notice further stated that the lessee Ramachandran, who was allottee of Shop No. 1, had dug, a bore-well inside the premises near to the road without obtaining permission from the Board. It was pointed out that the water service connection was given not for running a restaurant, but for the purposes of individual shop. It was pointed out that Ramachandran and constructed a tank of the size of 4' x 4' x 6' without obtaining any prior permission. It was also pointed out that since the walls between shops 1 and 2 and 2 and 3 were demolished, that was a damage to the main structure. There was also an additional huge chimney constructed, adjacent to the wall of the first floor of the residential block which caused much hardship and inconvenience to the residents of the flats. Thus it was pointed out that the allottees had violated the conditions of allotment and lease agreement and, therefore, the allottees were liable to be evicted.

(3.) It seems that explanation was given to this notice, wherein, all the three allottees admitted that the shops were individually allotted and though initially other businesses were carried in the shops and because of the rough weather and other reasons, the said business ran into trouble and loss and that since shop No. 1 was not having sufficient space to have a good restaurant, the allottees of all the shops mutually agreed to run a restaurant in all the three shops, in partnership. It was pointed out that even no objection was individually given by the Board in respect of all the three shops for getting water connection. It was further pointed out that the rents were being paid by the allottees regularly and the licence from the appropriate authorities had been obtained for running the eating house and as such there was no question of any violation. It was pointed out the letter of allotment did not contain any condition as to the nature of business an allottee could do in the said shop. As regards bore-well, it was admitted that there was a bore-well dug, but that was not within the premises of the Board and, therefore, there was no necessity of obtaining no objection certificate from the Board. It was pointed out that water was very essential much less for running a restaurant and, therefore, the digging of bore-well was justified. It was then stated also that the no objection certificate was issued by the Board for obtaining water connection from the Metro water and since the water from the Metro came only in odd hours and there was no running water all the 24 hours therefore the allottees had to store water and for that purpose temporary water tank was made available. It was admitted that the temporary water tank was built out of necessity because of the sporadic supply of the water by the Metro. Then it was very bravely claimed that there was no common wall dividing the shops. It was claimed that such a wall was never demolished. On the contrary, it was claimed that the allottees had improved the premises to keep it clean. It was then claimed that since only liquid gas was being used, there was no question of any smoke from the chimney.