(1.) The 2nd respondent had constructed a building in 1972 at a time when Thodupuzha was a Panchayat. The petitioner's father had been allotted shop room Nos.VII/2, 3 and 4 in the building and he started conducting a hotel in partnership with another person. The partnership was dissolved in 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner's father was occupying the rooms in his individual capacity after executing an agreement with the 2nd respondent who is the successor-in-interest of Thodupuzha Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the rooms bearing Nos.2 and 4 together with a kitchen area covered with sheet and a staircase area having access to the water tank, was being used for conducting the hotel business and the room with door No.3 was being used for conducting garment business. It is stated that the license fee was being paid for the entire area inclusive of the kitchen area and staircase and the monthly license fee fixed by the 2nd respondent was to be increased on an annual basis by 5%.
(2.) The 2nd respondent proposed to construct a Municipal Town Hall. For the purpose of the construction, a portion of the kitchen area in the possession of the petitioner's father needed to be demolished. The petitioner's father agreed to demolish the entire kitchen portion and requested that he may be permitted to put up a modified kitchen in an area of 13 x 3.8 M2 and improve the rooms using his own funds and, to put up a temporary structure to be used as a kitchen, while the regular kitchen was being constructed. On 26/1/2001, the 3rd respondent decided to permit the demolition of the kitchen area and the construction of another kitchen in 13 x 3.8 M2 adjoining the hotel on the southern side. It was also decided that for two months, the petitioner's father can be permitted to put up a temporary shed for use as a kitchen. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the decision taken by the 3rd respondent.
(3.) The petitioner submits that in the year 2006, the petitioner's father submitted an application before the 2nd respondent for permission to put up three shutters on the kitchen side. As no decision was taken by the 2nd respondent within the statutory period, it is stated that the petitioner's father had put up the shutters in the kitchen portion. It is stated that the 2nd respondent had even without issuing any notice, dispossessed the petitioner's father on 5/2/2008 and cancelled his licence on 13/2/2008. The petitioner's father was also served with a notice dtd. 5/8/2008, imposing punishments for constructing the shutters. The order also contained directions for demolition, to keep open the staircase that leads to the water tank to the public, and also for enhancement of the rent by 10%. The notice dtd. 5/8/2008 was challenged in Appeal No.508 of 2008 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions(hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) and the Tribunal set aside the notice with liberty to the 2nd respondent to initiate fresh proceedings. Since the 2nd respondent did not hand over possession, the petitioner's father filed W.P.(C)No.214 of 2009 before this Court praying for the restoration of possession of the shop rooms. Pending the writ petition, the 2nd respondent submitted before this Court that the shop rooms can be handed over to the petitioner's father without demanding enhanced rent but on the condition that the shutters put up will be removed. Regarding opening up of the staircase area for the public, the petitioner's father was directed to file a representation. On the basis of the submission, the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dtd. 23/3/2009. When there was a delay in executing the agreement and in the consideration of the representation regarding the staircase area pursuant to Ext.P2, the petitioner's father filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki (CDRF for short), as CC.No.182 of 2009. By Ext.P3 order dtd. 28/12/2009, the CDRF granted relief to the petitioner's father, by directing the 2nd respondent to execute the lease agreement within two weeks.