Q. We have stayed in a house in Indira Nagar, Chennai, for almost six years and paid a refundable rental advance to the landlord amounting to Rs 1,75,000. We vacated the house, giving a month’s notice and with the landlord’s consent. He promised to pay by way of post-dated cheque, and took the keys of his house.
The post-dated cheques - one for Rs 1 lakh and one for Rs 75,000 - were deposited, but they bounced. He insisted that we return the cheques, but we refused. He called to say that he would pay Rs 1 lakh if we return the cheques, which we did and he transferred the money to my wife’s bank account. Now, he has been making false and empty promises. In light of the above, how to recover our money?
— CSN Murthy
A. You will have to file a civil suit against your house owner for the refund of the deposit amount together with interest. If you had kept those two bounced cheques with you, you could have filed a criminal complaint against the house owner under section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act. It is needless to state that the civil litigation will take its own time to complete.
Q. We live in a 600-sq-ft flat in a block measuring 3,000-sq-ft of land which has six units (four flats of 600 sq ft each and two flats of 400 sq ft each). The other block also has the same specifications of ground area and number of flats. Though both blocks are in the same compound, the ground is registered separately. Both blocks have 12 flats in total.
As per the existing agreement, all six flats have equal UDS. We have now started a reconstruction programme in block 1 along with a builder. He offered us 2/3 of the area and he will take 1/3 of the saleable area. The owners of the 400-sq-ft houses claim that they have equal right on UDS so the new flat should also be of equal size to that of the 600-sq-ft flat owners. Is the new size of each flat based on existing UDS or in the ratio of the existing size? Is the claim of 400-sq-ft flat owners justifiable?
— Aravamudhan
A. Technically, after the demolition of the old structure, those two owners of the 400-sq-ft apartment also become an equal owner of the Undivided Share of land. Therefore, when you go for a new builder agreement and get two-thirds of the constructed space, they can also demand an equal constructed area. The question of any proportionate share of the constructed area may not arise. Further, in this new joint development agreement, unless they sign you cannot go for new development over the property. It is better that wise counsel prevails.
Q. I am a 71-year-old retired college teacher. During the financial year 2013-14, the sub-treasury — Karaikudi deducted a sum of Rs 21,045 from my pension as advance income tax but failed to remit the same to my PAN. I contacted the concerned clerks more than fifteen times, to no avail. I contacted the sub-treasury officer five times, but still no response.
Then, I wrote to the sub-treasury but received no response. Then I wrote to the sub-treasury in Sivaganga. They advised the Karaikudi sub-treasury to do the needful. Nothing has materialised so far. I wrote to the director of the treasuries to no avail, and then wrote twice to the sub-treasury under RTI provisions. In response to the first letter, they assured that it would be done soon.But nothing happened, and there has been no response to the second letter. I wrote to the pensioners’ grievance cell and the collectorate at Sivaganga and got no response. What can I do?
— Dr John Paulus T
A. File a writ petition in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court against your department and get the relief including the cost of the litigation.
Q. My mother-in-law’s family consisted of her parents and a younger brother. They inherited an ancestral property by way of partition deed in 1967. In 1985, the above property was settled among her father, mother and son (who was a minor then). My mother-in-law, who was above 18 years of age, was left out and no mention was made of her in the above deed. She was unmarried at the time. Her mother passed away in 2008. Her father and brother deny her of any share of the property. Can my wife proceed for a share over the entire portioned property settled in the year 1985 or for a share in the demised mother’s property along with her father and brother, as she died without leaving any will?
— Vaishnavi R, Udumalpet
A. Your wife can only seek for share from the share of the mother’s property flowing from the settlement. Now it is too late to question the legality of the settlement which is 34 years old. Your challenge to the settlement will be thrown out as being time-barred.
Q. On January 24, 2019, The New Indian Express carried a news item with a picture regarding the illegal occupation of road space, quoting my name as a whistleblower. I got a reply from Postal Department that the address Ayya Nagar mentioned on the name board of the illegal occupants — owners of Sri Muruga Hardwares — does not exist on Madipakkam Main Road.
The owners of Muruga Hardwares show the same when asked of the property document based on which they claim ownership of the place. According to a 1973 layout, 30-feet road space has been assigned in the place presently occupied by the illegal occupants. Is there any scope of this case being taken by the Madras High Court under PIL?
— S Madhavan
A. You can file a writ petition seeking for removal of encroachment by way of public interest before the High Court.
(Justice K Chandru is a former judge of the Madras High Court)