Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to Shop No. K-106 in Periyar Vegetable Market Complex, Koyambedu, Chennai. The father of the appellant, G. Murali, was the original allottee of the shop in 1998, having paid the entire cost. Upon his death on 12.02.2015, the appellant succeeded as the owner as the legal heir. The first respondent, A. Lackendran, occupied the shop without any valid lease from the appellant. The second respondent, the Chief Administrative Officer of the Market Management Committee, issued a notice in May 2018 for eviction. In response, the first respondent filed W.P. No. 13176 of 2018 seeking to forbear the second respondent from taking coercive steps like eviction, projecting that the Committee had leased out the premises to him. The appellant was not impleaded in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 12.09.2022 solely because the second respondent had not filed a counter; no adjudication on merits took place. The appellant, being the real owner, was prejudiced by the order and filed the present writ appeal after obtaining leave. The appellant argued that no valid lease existed between him and the first respondent, the first respondent had no locus to occupy the premises, rent control proceedings were pending, and the writ order was obtained behind his back. The first respondent contended that the writ petition was only to secure a licence from the Market Management Committee to run the business. The Court found that the first respondent had no legal right to occupy the premises or seek a licence in the absence of a valid lease. The writ order had been passed without adjudication on merits and without impleading a necessary party, rendering it infirm. Consequently, the writ appeal was allowed, the order dated 12.09.2022 in W.P. No. 13176 of 2018 was set aside, and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Writ Jurisdiction - Locus Standi - No Valid Lease - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The first respondent filed a writ petition seeking to restrain eviction without impleading the appellant, who was the owner of the shop. Since no valid lease existed between the parties, the first respondent had no legal right to occupy the premises or seek a licence. The writ order was passed without adjudication on merits and behind the back of a necessary party. Held that the impugned order is infirm and cannot be sustained, and it was set aside (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first respondent had locus standi to occupy the subject premises and to file a writ petition in the absence of a valid lease with the owner, and whether the writ order dated 12.09.2022, passed without impleading a necessary party and without adjudication on merits, is sustainable.
Final Decision
Writ appeal allowed; the order dated 12.09.2022 in W.P.No.13176 of 2018 is set aside. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- no locus standi without valid lease
- writ petition cannot be allowed without adjudication on merits
- relief cannot be granted behind back of necessary party
- rights of owner cannot be prejudiced
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 55
S.M.Subramaniam, K.Rajasekar
Citation not available, 2025:MHC:527
Mr.M.Sriram, Mr.M.Rajasekhar, Mrs.P.Veena
1. A.Lackendran, 2. The Chief Administrative Officer, Market Management Committee, Koyambedu Wholesale Market Committee, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 092
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge allowing a writ petition to forbear eviction without impleading the owner of the shop.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the order dated 12.09.2022 in W.P.No.13176 of 2018, which restrained the Market Management Committee from evicting the first respondent.
Filing Reason
The first respondent occupied a shop without a valid lease; the Market Management Committee issued an eviction notice; the first respondent filed a writ petition without impleading the owner and obtained an order behind his back.
Previous Decisions
Learned Single Judge allowed W.P.No.13176 of 2018 on 12.09.2022 as the second respondent (Market Management Committee) had not filed a counter; the order was passed without adjudication on merits.
Issues
Whether the first respondent has locus standi to occupy the shop and to file a writ petition in the absence of a valid lease with the owner?
Whether the writ order dated 12.09.2022, passed without impleading a necessary party (the owner) and without adjudication on merits, is sustainable?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that no valid lease exists between appellant and first respondent; first respondent has no locus to occupy the premises; rent control proceedings are pending; the writ petition was filed and the order obtained behind the appellant's back without impleading a necessary party.
First respondent argued that the writ petition was filed only to secure a licence from the Market Management Committee to run the business.
Ratio Decidendi
In writ proceedings, if necessary parties are not impleaded and no adjudication on merits is conducted, the order is infirm and unsustainable. An occupant without a valid lease has no legal right to continue occupation or seek forbearance from eviction. The rights of a necessary party (owner) cannot be prejudiced by an order passed behind their back.
Judgment Excerpts
the father of the writ appellant-Mr.G.Murali was the original allottee... The appellant became the owner, since he is the legal heir of the original allottee.
no valid lease exists between the appellant and the first respondent. In the absence of any lease, the first respondent has no locus to occupy the subject premises.
the writ order impugned is infirm and cannot be sustained.
Procedural History
The father of the appellant was the original allottee of Shop No.K-106 in Periyar Vegetable Market Complex, Koyambedu, in 1998. Upon his death on 12.02.2015, the appellant became the owner as legal heir. The first respondent occupied the shop without a valid lease. The second respondent (Market Management Committee) issued an eviction notice in May 2018. The first respondent filed W.P.No.13176 of 2018 to forbear eviction, without impleading the appellant. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 12.09.2022 as no counter was filed by the second respondent. The appellant, aggrieved, filed the present writ appeal after obtaining leave.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226
- Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, 1865: Clause 15
