E.ANSARUDEEN Vs. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is in occupation of a shop room within the jurisdiction of the Kollam Corporation. Originally he started as a tenant of the building. The petitioner now claims that by virtue of an agreement for sale and by part performance thereof, he has become entitled to proprietary rights over the same by virtue of S.53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The door of the shop room was originally comprised of wooden planks. By passage of time, according to the petitioner, the same became unsafe for protection of the shop room. Therefore, he replaced the same by rolling shutters. On the ground that he did not obtain a permit from the Corporation for replacing the door of the shop room, proceedings were initiated and by Ext. P9, the petitioner has been directed to demolish the rolling shutters installed by the petitioner. Against the said order of the Secretary of the Corporation, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, which was dismissed by Ext. P13. The petitioner is challenging Exts. P9 and P13 orders in this writ petition.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that replacing wooden planks with rolling shutters is not a construction activity which requires permit from the Corporation. He takes me through various provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, particularly, R.10 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. According to him, as per R.10, providing or removing of windows or doors or ventilators has been specifically included in the works, which do not require a building permit. He submits that if providing a new door where there was no door at all, does not require a building permit, then replacing existing door would not also require a building permit. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

(3.) The learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the replacement of wooden planks by rolling shutters is a work which requires a building permit. It is also submitted by the counsel for the Corporation that under S.386 of the Kerala Municipality Act, no door, gate, bar or ground floor window which opens on any public street shall be constructed or reconstructed without a licence under S.366. According to him, this particular door opens into a public street and therefore the petitioner could not have re - constructed the door without obtaining a licence under S.366, which he has not obtained. It is also submitted that the construction undertaken by the petitioner was without the consent of the landlord, which also is violation of the Kerala Municipality Act and Rules.