This writ petition has been filed, praying for a writ of mandamus, to forbear the respondents from, in any manner, evicting or dispossessing the petitioner from the building bearing door No.1/3, New No.136, Mariyappan Compound, Kattapomman Nagar, Sellur, Madurai-2, except under the due process of law, including Rule 115 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the second respondent is attempting to evict the petitioner without following sub-clause 6 of Rule 115 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988. The petitioner had stated that one Mariyappan, the landlord of the property occupied by the petitioner, as a tenant, and his wife Santhanakala had borrowed a sum of Rs.14,61,255/- from the second respondent society, by mortgaging the house property bearing door No.1/3, New No.136, Mariyappan Compound, Kattapomman Nagar, Sellur, Madurai-2, under the occupation of the petitioner. Since, Mariyappan and his wife Santhanakala had not repaid the amount borrowed from the second respondent, the property had been brought for auction and it had been auctioned, on 30.08.2010. Since, it has also been stated that the petitioner is a tenant in occupation of the property in question and therefore, the respondents ought to have followed the procedure established under sub-clause 6 of Rule 115 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988, before evicting him from the said property. Since, the said procedure had not been followed, he has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, invoking
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the property in question had been brought for auction, on 30.08.2010, since the owner of the said property, Mariyappan and his wife Santhanakala, who had borrowed a sum of Rs.14,61,255/- from the second respondent, had not repaid the said amount. Further, a civil suit had been filed by the petitioner, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai, in O.S.No.665 of 2003, praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein from evicting the petitioner, without following the due procedure established by law. However, it has not been shown that the landlord is attempting to evict the petitioner from the property in question. In fact, the petitioner has not made the landlord of the property, as a party to the present writ petition. It has also been stated that the petitioner has to avail the remedies provided under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder to seek the necessary relief, if any.
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. It has not been shown that the petitioner is being evicted from the property in question, without following the procedure provided under Rule 115 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988. Further, the original landlord of the property in question, namely, Mariyappan and his wife Santhanakala, who had borrowed a sum of Rs.14,61,255/- from the second respondent society, by mortgaging the property in question had not been made as parties to the present writ petition. Further, from the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is seen that the second respondent had taken steps to auction the property in question, on 30.08.2010. If the auction had taken place, on 30.08.2010, and if the property had been sold to a third party, such a person should also have been impleaded as a party to the present writ petition.
5. Further, in view of the fact that the petitioner has obtained a decree, in O.S.No.665 of 2003, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai taluk, restraining the defendants therein from evicting the petitioner, except by following the due procedure established by law, this Court finds that the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted in the present writ petition, at this stage. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
srm To
1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, Madurai Circle, Madurai.
2.The Secretary, A-2560, Kochadai Primary Agricultural Cooperative and Credit Society Limited, Madurai.