HC dismisses petition filed by P.ORR & Sons

The Madras High Court today dismissed a petition filed by the over-eight decade business firm, P.ORR & Sons, situated on a busy road here, challenging a demolition notice of the Chennai Corporation dated April 1 last year.
The Corporation had asked the the firm, famous for selling various types of watches, to take down the rear portion of the building in their occupation as a tenant to an extent of about 894 sq. Ft for the purpose of Chennai Metro Rail Limited.
The firm is a tenant of Associated Publishers Private Ltd for more than seven decades and the building is over 100 years old.

The Associated Publishers, after seeking an opinion of the IIT, had claimed that the structure was in a dilapidated condition, endangering the lives of occupants and passers-by due to the use of heavy machines and tunnel-boring machines, which is being done by the railways for the metro rail project.
The Corporation had issued the notice, citing the IIT opinion, asking the firm to fence off the rear portion and take down the building to the extent of about 894 sq. Ft., so as to prevent any damage to the remaining portions.
Dismissing the petition and rejecting the arguments of the petitioner that the report was deliberately carried out behind their back, Justice V.Ramasubramanian said "though the assessment by the IIT Madras was made without the knowledge of the petitioner herein, I do not think that the said report can be rubbished. IIT Madras had no interest in the demolition or retention of the building."

"... Therefore, prima facie I do not find any justification to dump the report of the Indian Institute of Technology...As a matter of fact, the report of IIT does not indicate that they were aware of any previous litigation between the petitioner and the landlord," the judge said.
"Admittedly the petitioner is in occupation of more than about 14000 sq.Ft.Of built up area. He would not lose anything by demolishing 894 sq. Ft. Out of the same. The inconvenience that may probably be caused to the petitioner by losing a small portion of the building is very insignificant when compared to the peril to which many persons may be exposed in the event of a disaster. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.