As against the petitioner in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1336 of 2017, it is found that proceedings were initiated by the respondent, who is the petitioner in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1202 of 2017, under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1975, (hereinafter, referred to as ?the Act?). Accordingly, it is found that a show-cause notice was issued under the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why it should not be evicted from the subject matter. It is found that pursuant to the same, the respondent had passed an order of eviction as against the petitioner granting fourteen days time. The petitioner has impugned the order of eviction passed against it by way of filing the statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority, in A.S.No.45 of 2017. Pending appeal, it is found that the petitioner had preferred an application in I.A.No.119 of 2017 seeking to stay the enforcement order passed by the respondent, dated 02.06.2017, till the disposal of the appeal.
2. No doubt, it is found that the Appellate Authority, by an order, dated 17.06.2017, had granted interim stay in favour of the petitioner till the counter is filed by the respondent and accordingly, posted the matter for due enquiry on 27.06.2017. Meanwhile, it is found that the counter having been filed by the respondent contending that the possession of the subject matter had been taken by the respondent on 16.06.2017 itself in accordance with law, the Appellate Authority, considering the materials placed and the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, dismissed the stay application preferred by the petitioner. Impugning the same, C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1336 of 2017 has been preferred. As against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, dated 17.06.2017, granting limited stay in favour of the petitioner, C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1202 of 2017 has been preferred.
3. Both matters were heard together and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1336 of 2017 vehemently argued as to the infirmities in the show cause notice sent by the respondent and also the impugned order of eviction passed by the respondent, dated 02.06.2017. But, as rightly put forth by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, all these contentions are to be raised only before the Appellate Authority during the course of the hearing of the appeal. The short point that arises for consideration in these civil revision petitions is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek for the stay of the enforcement of the eviction order, dated 02.06.2017, till the disposal of the appeal. In other words, it has to be seen that whether the respondent has taken possession of the subject matter on 16.06.2017 as claimed by it.
4. It is found that the appeal proceedings were originally initiated before the wrong forum and thereafter, they were sent to the correct forum. It is, thus, seen that only on 17.06.2017, the matter been seized of by the Appellate Authority as such and accordingly, it is found that the Appellate Authority, on the basis of the materials then placed before it and as the respondent sought time for filing counter and also in the interest of justice, granted interim stay by an order, dated 17.06.2017, till the counter is filed by the respondent and posted the matter for due enquiry on 27.06.2017.
5. Now, it is found that on the basis of the materials placed, the respondent pursuant to the order of eviction, dated 02.06.2017, has taken the possession of the subject matter under acknowledgment by the petitioner and the material with reference to the same is also pressed into service. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that the possession had not been taken over by the respondent and the petitioner had not acknowledged the same and the possession still vests with the petitioner and in such view of the matter, the illegal attempt on the part of the respondent in taking possession of the property cannot be encouraged by this Court and therefore, the petitioner should be granted the stay order as prayed for.
6. The Appellate Authority, on a consideration of the materials placed, finding that the respondent had taken due possession of the subject matter on 16.06.2017 itself and further finding that the matter had been seized of by the Appellate Authority only on 17.06.2017 and further holding that the petitioner has not established that it continued to be in possession of the subject matter as put forth by it, dismissed the stay application and vacated the interim stay already granted by it.
7. The above order of the Appellate Authority is being challenged. However, as rightly put forth by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, when it is found on the basis of the materials placed that the respondent had taken due possession of the subject matter in the manner known to law under acknowledgment of the petitioner on 16.06.2017 and thereafter, when there is no material placed worthwhile acceptance that the petitioner continues to be in the possession of the subject matter, it is found that as rightly determined by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is not entitled for the stay order as prayed for by it. No doubt, the order of interim stay would have been granted in favour of the petitioner for a limited period by the Appellate Authority. That by itself could not be taken advantage by the petitioner by contending that the stay order should be made absolute till the disposal of the appeal. As rightly found by the Appellate Authority, when it has been brought to its notice that the respondent has taken possession of the subject matter on 16.06.2017 itself and thereafter, the petitioner has not established that it continued to be in the legal possession of the subject matter as contended by it and when there is no material also to hold that the respondent has taken the possession of the subject matter illegally or by using force, it is found that the Court below had rightly dismissed the stay application and also vacated the stay order already granted by it.
8. It is strenuously argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1336 of 2017 that the respondent has not followed the principles of natural justice in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Act and without giving due opportunity to it to defend the proceedings and without waiting for the completion of the appeal time provided under the Act, had illegally taken possession of the property and therefore, the Court should not encourage such acts and therefore, the stay order prayed for by the petitioner should be granted. However, it is found that the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel as regards the infirmities in the show cause notice or of the eviction order, all are matters to be urged in the main appeal proceedings. When as seen above there is no material placed on record to show that the respondent had taken the possession of the subject matter illegally, it is found that the respondent had taken the possession of the subject matter only after the expiry of the time granted while passing the eviction order. As rightly argued, the appeal time provided under the Act may not enure to the petitioner as only fourteen days time has been granted to the petitioner. It is found that on the expiry of the said period, the respondent had in the manner known to law, taken possession of the subject matter under the acknowledgment of the petitioner and therefore, this Court is unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
9. As already adverted to, the various contentions put forth by the learned Senior Counsel as regards the merits of the case are all matters to be urged before the Appellate Authority during the hearing of the appeal. In such view of the matter, the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel reported in AIR 1934 Mad 320 DB [M.P.Palaniappa Chettiar and others vs. S.A.Ramanathan Chettiar and another], AIR 1966 AP 4 [Puvvada Changayya vs. Sub Collector, Ongole and others], 1969 (3) SCC 415 [M/s.Wire-netting Stores and another vs. The Delhi Development Authority and others], AIR 1973 AP 27 [State Govt. of A.P. vs. M/s.Manickchand Jeevraj and Co., and another], AIR 1983 Madras 261 [Brindha Muthuswami vs. The T.N.Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. And others], AIR 1992 Bombay 375 [Minoo Framroze Balsara vs. The Union of India and others], 1999 (III) CTC 588 [N.Govindan vs. The Chief Personnel Officer, I.C.F. Madras-38 and another], (2008) 3 SCC 279 [New India Assurance Company Ltd., vs. Nusli Neville Wadia and another], (2011) 106 AIC 310 [Union of India vs. Om Narayan Singh @ Tun Tun Singh and another] and (2015) 1 CTC 465 [Solaiammal and others vs. Thoothukudi Municipal Corporation] are found to be not applicable for consideration at present, since the materials placed go to indicate that the respondent had taken due possession of the subject matter pursuant to the order of eviction in the manner known to law.
10. In the light of the above discussions, the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the stay application does not call for any interference from this Court. Resultantly, C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1336 of 2017 is dismissed with costs and consequently, C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1202 of 2017 is allowed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To:
The District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil..