LAWS(KER)-2004-7-35

REGHUNATH Vs. THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY

Decided On July 21, 2004
REGHUNATH Appellant
V/S
THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS a tenant the petitioner had been occupying building no. 232 of Ward No. 10 of Thiruvalla Municipality . This was one of the rooms in a three storied building consisting of six rooms. The case of the petitioner is that he had obtained the premises on lease from one K. V. Gopalan Achari, the father of the third respondent but from 1988 onwards the landlords were attempting to evict him. R. C. P. No. 3 of 1998 met with no success, and the judgment had been confirmed in C. R. P. No. 639 of 1993. When there was forcible demolition attempted, in view of the intervention of the munsiff 's Court, by way of O. S. No. 280 of 2003, the third respondent, who had come to the shoes of his father by that time, had been constrained to give an undertaking that he will not take any steps for forcible eviction/ demolition. AS at present, R. C. P. Nos. 4 and 6 of 2004 also have been filed by the landlord, for the purpose of eviction and they are yet to attain finality.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, by surreptitious methods, the petitioner avers, the third respondent could obtain an order from the municipality as Ext. P2 dated 8. 6. 2004. The effect of the order was that the third respondent was authorised to demolish the building expeditiously. A finding had been entered into by the Secretary in Ext. P2 order that on the basis of the application filed by the landlord dated 25. 5. 2004, the issue had been got examined and it was found that the building is in a totally unsafe condition, and it required to be demolished.

(3.) AFTER the disposal of the appeal, by letter dated 2. 7. 2004 (Ext. P6), the Secretary had informed that as the appeal stood rejected, further steps had been envisaged. It also informed him that the objection filed by him against the proposal in Ext. P4 for cancellation of licence was not acceptable and the licence is cancelled. There also he had been required to remove the articles in his possession within a period of seven days. These orders were under challenge.