SREENIVASAN Vs. COMMR CALICUT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. The facts of the case are: The predecessors of the plaintiff gave a lease of the plaint schedule property, a small piece of land, for commercial purposes to the predecessors-in-interest of the 2nd defendant. The land is on the side of the Francis Road, Calicut City. A shed put up by the lessee with the permission of the landlord was acquired for the purpose of widening the Francis Road, and later demolished by the 1st defendant Corporation of Calicut on payment of compensation to the 2nd defendant. Thereupon, in July 1966 the 2nd defendant put up a shed in the property without getting the building permission from the Corporation of Calicut. The plaintiff filed a written objection to the Corporation. On 8-7-1966 the Corporation Commissioner issued a notice to the 2nd defendant to demolish the construction already made and not to proceed with the construction until permission was given. The 2nd defendant appealed to the Standing Committee on Health of the Corporation. The Standing Committee rejected the 2nd defendant's appeal and confirmed the order for demolition passed by the Commissioner. As the 2nd defendant did not demolish the shed, departmental demolition of the same with Police aid was fixed for 6-12-1966. Then on 5-12-1966 the 2nd defendant submitted an application for permission to build the shed. In the covering letter dated 5-12-1966 the 2nd defendant requested the Commissioner to waive the order for demolition and grant permission for the shed. The plaintiff wrote to the Commissioner objecting to the grant of permission. On 23-3-1967 the Commissioner refused permission on the ground that the ownership of land was disputed. On 13-5-1967 the 2nd defendant again applied to the Commissioner for permission. On 11-6-1967 the plaintiff produced his title deeds of the property. Again the Commissioner directed the 2nd defendant to remove the structure. On receipt of this the 2nd defendant again requested for licence and for withdrawal of the order for demolition. The matter again came up for consideration before the Standing Committee and on 27-8- 1968 the Committee decided to refuse permission to build and directed demolition of the shed put up. The decision was challenged by the 2nd defendant before the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode. On 1-9-1971 the 2nd defendant again applied for permission. On 7-10-1971 the legal adviser to the Corporation gave his opinion pointing out that there was no provision of law conferring on the tenant the right to put up structures without the permission of the landlord and hence consent of the landlord must be there. But on 28-10-1971 the Standing Committee decided to compromise the suit filed by the 2nd defendant and to grant permission. On 5-11-1971 the Commissioner granted the 2nd defendant permission. The plaintiff thereupon represented to the Commissioner, the Mayor and the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Health. The plaintiff's representation came up for consideration before the Standing Committee on a number of times, but the same was adjourned.

(2.) It was under the above circumstances that the plaintiff filed the suit before the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode for a declaration that the licence granted to the 2nd defendant was invalid and for a mandatory injunction to the 1st defendant Corporation to demolish the shed put up by the 2nd defendant. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that it was premature. The Trial Court also held that 'the plaintiff has no locus standi'. The plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in appeal. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal saying that, even if the suit is not premature, the appellant has not succeeded in establishing that there is a cause of action for him against the defendants. The plaintiff has challenged the above judgment and decree in this second appeal.

(3.) The main questions that arise for consideration in this second appeal are: (1) Whether a Municipal Corporation can give permission to construct a building if the application made by the tenant of the land under S.242 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 is not signed by the owner of the land also; (2; whether the Standing Committee of a Municipal Corporation has the power to review its decisions and (3) whether the pendency of a representation before the Standing Committee be a bar for a suit by the aggrieved person to set aside the order granting permission.