P.J. Shyamala vs Prasanna Vinayakar Temple and The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai

P. Sathasivam, J.—The Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.02.1999 made in W.P. No.

19585 of 1998, in and by which, the learned Judge, after finding that the writ petitioner - Prasanna Vinayagar Temple, the owner of the building

must have been heard by the authority, viz., the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, while deciding the application filed by the second

respondent - appellant herein for regularisation of the building.

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the first respondent.

On going through the reasoning of the learned Judge, we do not find any ground for interference. As rightly observed by the learned Judge, the

appellant being a lessee, has to obtain consent of the landlord - writ petitioner - Prasanna Vinayagar Temple for additional construction or for any

alteration in the physical features. In such circumstance, the learned Judge rightly directed the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai to issue

notice to the writ petitioner. Prasanna Vinayagar Temple and dispose of the application for regularisation, after hearing both parties. We are

satisfied that the course adopted by the learned Judge cannot be faulted with. On the other hand, the same is in accordance with law.

Though the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that observation in para 7 of the order is not warranted, in view of the fact

that the conclusion of the learned Judge and ultimate direction are in consonance with the established principles, we are not inclined to interfere

with the same. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.