MUTHUGOPAL Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, Mr. V. R. Krishna Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks to have two communications issued by the first respondent, namely, the Assistant Collector, Kozhikode, Exts. P. 1 and P.1(a), quashed. Ext. P. 1 is an order under which the first respondent allots the building in question under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959, to the second respondent and Ext. P.1(a) again is a further communication of the same date as Ext. P. 1 under which it is stated by the first respondent that the building in question is required by an officer of the State Government/Central Government and that it is accordingly taken over again under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959. These are the two orders that are sought to be quashed in these proceedings.

(2.) Before I advert to the various aspects that have been presented before me by Mr. V. R. Krishna Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. V. Surianarayana Iyer, learned counsel for the contesting second respondent, and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Accommodation Controller, it is desirable to set out the circumstances under which this writ petition has come to be filed.

(3.) The petitioner as owner of shop No. 10/321 situated in Kozhikode Town appears to have taken steps to get vacant possession of the building under the provisions of the said enactment and there is controversy that actually vacant possession was got on 23-1-1961.