LAWS(KER)-2015-3-185

USHA JACOB Vs. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Decided On March 02, 2015
Usha Jacob Appellant
V/S
CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the petitioner is a tenant of the eighth respondent, a part of whose property, situated in Menamkulam Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, was let out way back in 2005. In course of time, the eighth respondent is said to have instituted a suit for eviction, which, in fact, was decreed on 30.9.2013. Thereafter, though the petitioner filed R.C.A. No. 32/2012 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (the District Court), Thiruvananthapuram, she could not succeed, as the appellate court rendered a concurrent finding through its judgment, dated 19.9.2014. Nevertheless, the petitioner contends that so far the copy of the judgment in appeal has not been made available to her to lay further challenge against the decree in appeal. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that before the petitioner could be evicted through due process, the eighth respondent had taken recourse to a devious stratagem to oust the petitioner from the demised property. As a stratagem, the eighth respondent is said to have let out the balance portion of the property just in front of the petitioner's demised house to certain outsiders, who established a daily market without any valid licence from the respondent Corporation.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that by letting others to illegally conduct the market in the adjacent property, the eighth respondent has actually barred access to her house. Thus ventilating her grievance that the market is being conducted in violation of the Municipal Regulations, the petitioner has submitted Exhibit P8 complaint. The first respondent Corporation, in turn, issued Exhibit P15 informing the petitioner to complain to the police authorities on the ground of trespass: Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the eighth respondent, the owner of the property, has submitted that the eighth respondent has never let out the property to any third party. If there are any trespassers, he has, in fact, nothing to do with them.