SALIM Vs. CORPORATION OF GOCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is one of the partners of a firm which owns a building on the Banerji Road, Ernakulam. The building formerly belonged to Kochu Ouseph and his brothers. The petitioner and his partners purchased the building under Exts. P1 to P3 in May, 1979. Thereupon the partners ought to have given notice to the Corporation under S.108 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 (Act 30 of 1961). This was not done. Consequently, the change of ownership was not recorded in the Corporation's books. The Corporation came to know that the building was being reconstructed by its owners Ext. R1 provisional order dated 21-10-1980 was accordingly sent by the Commissioner to the previous owners calling upon them to show cause within 10 days why the provisional order should not be confirmed. Ext. R.2 of the same date is another order of the Commissioner directing the previous owners to stop the work forthwith. Exts. R1 and R2 were accepted by the petitioner, although they were not addressed to him or to his partners. The notice contained in Ext R1 can therefore be treated as having been duly served on the petitioner in his capacity as one of the partners of the firm owning the building. The petitioner answered Exts. R1 and R2 by Ext. P7 stating that, since the building was in a dangerous condition, he carried out certain repairs. He further stated in Ext. P7 that the roof tiles had not been laid which he would do only on completion of the repairs, but the repairs were stopped on receipt of Ext R2.

(2.) After receiving Ext. P7, the Commissioner passed Ext. P6 order confirming the provisional order Ext. R1. The Commissioner says:

(3.) S.262 reads: