RENUKA THILAKRAJ Vs. CORPORATION OF THRISSUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a widow of one Thilakaraj. By an agreement entered with the Corporation, Thilakaraj was given a bunk shop No.74 near Sakthan Thampuran Nagar Market. The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the notice issued by the Secretary of Thrissur Corporation directing the petitioner to remove the bunk. As per Ext.P18 proceedings, the petitioner was again directed to vacate the bunk for the purpose of the development activities of the Thrissur Corporation.

(2.) The learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the petitioner had not submitted any application for renewal of agreement or licence within the stipulated time. It is further submitted that the bunk is required for the development activities of the Corporation.

(3.) The petitioner is a widow of an allottee of the bunk. Considering the fact that she belonged to the poor strait of society, if there was any failure on her part in applying for renewal of agreement within time, cannot be construed against her. The Corporation is bound to renew agreement in her favour. However, if the Corporation is required this area of bunk for the purpose of development activities, the Corporation is free to evict the petitioner in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner points that there are many other bunks, apart from the bunk belongs to the petitioner and no action has been initiated by the Corporation against such occupants of the bunk.