On September 30, 1982 the High Court dismissed the civil revision petition of the petitioner and granted time till 31st of January, 1983 for the petitioner to vacate the premises in question.
The petitioner thereafter filed a special leave petition against the judgment and order of the High Court in this Court.
This Court initially ordered show cause numberice and also granted ad interim ex parte stay of dispossession.
On 29th January, 1983 the City Civil Court, Madras granted interim injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing the building till the disposal of the application in the suit filed by the petitioner against the erstwhile owner and the present landlords for specific performance of an agreement to sell the premises to the petitioner.
According to the petitioner the injunction was companyfirmed and was still companytinuing and the said suit for specific performance was also pending in the City Civil Court, Madras.
On 17th of February, 1986 this Court dismissed the special leave petition after numberice but directed that the decree for eviction would number be executed till 17.11.86.
It was observed by this Court that the petitioner would be at liberty to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, if so advised, challenging the validity of section 14 1 b of the Tamil Nadu Rent Act as mentioned on behalf of the petitioner.
The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the validity of section 14 1 b and section 16 2 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Act on the ground that these were arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and unconstitutional.
The petitioner companytends in this writ petition that companysequently the eviction order passed under section 14 1 b and companyfirmed in appeal is also illegal.
While K. Das and A.K. Sarkar, JJ.
An order made under section 13 was subject to judicial review on the grounds that a it was discriminatory, b it was made on grounds which were number germane or relevant to the policy and purpose of the Act, and c it was made on grounds which were mala fide.
1984 1 SCR 594 at 605 Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana and Ors.,
A.I.R. 1985 Madras 115, referred to.
for four decades.
Ramamurthi, V. Shanker, B. Parthasarthi, Raju Ramachandran, S. Srinivasan, M.C. Verma, C.S. Vaidyanathan, R.R. Pillai, E.C. Aggarwala, V. Balachandran, N.K. Sharma, N. Krishnamani, Diwan Balakram, A.T.M. Sampath, Mukul Mudgal, V. Balachandran, V. Shekhar, K. Parasaran, Attorney General, Soli J. Sorabjee, Shanti Bhushan, A.K. Verma, D.N. Mishra, A.V. Rangam, P.N. Ramalingam and M. Raghuraman, for appearing parties.
506 of 1986 as a typical one in order to appreciate the points in issue.
506 of 1986 etc.
The learned Judge of the trial companyrt ordered eviction under section 14 1 b of the Tamil Nadu Rent Act only for demolition and reconstruction and dismissed the other grounds, and that is the only ground with which we are companycerned in this appeal.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
It is number necessary to set these out exhaustively but it would be appropriate to deal with the facts of Writ Petition No.
The grounds in the eviction petition were number payment of rent under sec tion 10 2 1 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Act, unlawful sub letting under section 10 2 ii a , causing damages to the premises under section 10 2 iii and also for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction under section 14 1 b .
v. The Central Govt.
1984 1 SCR 428 Motor General Traders and Anr.
1986 2 C.R. 249 Panchamal Narayan Shenoy v. Basthi Venkatesha Shenoy, 1970 3 SCR 734 Jiwanlal Co. and Ors.
On 25th of February, 1981 the Appellate Court dismissed the petitioners appeal by saying that the landlords were rich people and capable of demolition and reconstruction in order to put the premises to a more profitable use by putting up their own showroom.
Different petitions deal with different facts.
v. Manot and Co., Ltd., 64 Calcutta Weekly Notes, 932 at 937 and M s. Patel Road ways Private Limited, Madras v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.,
1979 3 S.C.R. 1107 at 1117, 1118 Punjab Tin Supply Co., Chandigarh etc.
v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
In Writ Petition No.
506 of 1986, the respondent landlord on or about 21st of March, 1978 after purchasing the premises No.95, Thyagaraja Road, T. Nagar, Madras from the erstwhile owner, filed an eviction petition in the companyrt of Small Causes, Madras for eviction of the petitioner herein from the premises where the petitioner had been carrying on a hotel business serving meals etc.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. There is much ado about numberhing about these cases.
