(Made by Huluvadi G.Ramesh,J) This application has been filed seeking to review the order of this Court dated 12.7.2016 made in W.P.No.22225 of 2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 and the learned Special Government Pleader for the sixth respondent.
3. The applicants were tenants under the respondents 7 and 8 in the premises at No.95, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. The respondents 7 and 8, who are the owners, filed a petition to evict the applicants from the premises on the ground that they require it for demolition and reconstruction and the said petition was dismissed. However, the prayer of the respondents 7 and 8 was allowed in the appeal. In the revision filed by the applicants, the High Court held that the applicants could be evicted by the respondents 7 and 8 only after filing of proper and valid plan before the Executing Court. Thereafter, the applicants were evicted from the premises and subsequently, they filed writ petitions which did not fructify, resulting in the filing of the above review application.
4. The respondents 7 and 8, after demolition of the premises in question and obtaining permission, re-constructed the building. But, according to the applicants, the respondents 7 and 8 had violated the building plan and therefore, they filed writ petitions questioning the construction put up by the applicants, under the guise of exercising their right for re-occupation. However, after considering the stand of the respondents 7 and 8 that re-induction of the applicants was only a subsequent event, if at all any order was passed by the Rent Control Court and not otherwise and also the stand of the respondent authorities that they would permit only after proper verification, dismissed the writ petition.
5. On a careful look at the facts of the case, it is evident that the act of the applicants in filing the writ petitions on the ground that the landlords, namely respondents 7 and 8, hand in glove with the respondent/authorities, had illegally constructed the building based on a fraudulent plan obtained by them, that too, after they were evicted from the said premises, is only to wreak vengeance against the respondents 7 and 8 and not with the real intention of getting themselves re-inducted in the premises in question. Though the applicants have filed this review application seeking to review the order passed by this Court, we do not find any ground to review our order, except to observe that the applicants had adopted dilatory tactics in order to wreak vengeance against the respondents 7 and 8/landlords for having evicted them from the premises and it is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, this review application is dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes/No (H.G.R.J.) (M.V.M.J.) Internet: Yes/No 11.01.2017 kpl To
1. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
2. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings Chennai 600 003.
3. Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central) Corporation of Chennai No.368, 2nd Cross Street Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar Chennai 600 030.
4. The City Engineer Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings Chennai 600 003.
5. The Executive Engineer Zone X Corporation of Chennai No.64, Kalaivanar Salai Chennai 600 024.
6. The Tahsildar Mambalam Guindy Taluk Chennai 600 015.
HULUVADI G.RAMESH,J,
and M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.
kpl Rev.A.(W) No.139 of 2016.
11.01.2017.
http://www.judis.nic.in