FOUSIYA. A.P, Vs. THALIPPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the co-owner of a building bearing No.TMC XXIX-730 to 741(A) which is a shopping complex under the name 'Marmar Arcade'. The building has been let out to tenants. The third respondent who is a tenant of the ground floor of the building has encroached into and reduced the car parking area, the fire exit and a portion of the terrace and converted it as godown. Ext.P2 notice was issued by the Secretary of the Municipality to the owners, requiring restoration of the safety measures and production of fire NOC. The owners are being faulted for the illegal actions of conversion. As a co-owner of the building, the petitioner is interested in seeing that the illegal encroachment and change of user made by the third respondent is abated. Though the Municipality is vested with the power and has issued Ext.P12 notice requiring removal of such conversions and obstructions, no action pursuant thereto has been taken. It is thereupon that the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

(3.) Though the third respondent would contend that the petitioner is only one among the co-owners and that the others have not joined in the writ petition, even going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner has filed the writ petition only in her capacity as a co-owner and not in derogation of the title of the other co-owners. The allegation of the petitioner is regarding illegal occupancy/conversion of the parking area, fire exit and portion of the terrace as godown, which is not permissible under law. Therefore, the objection raised, that the petitioner is only a coowner and is not competent to maintain the writ petition is without substance.