SUNIL Vs. ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P13 notice issued by the respondent municipality by which, the petitioner was asked to close down his business run within the local limits of municipality in the shop room owned by the third respondent, is under challenge.

(2.) The petitioner alleges that he is a businessman and was conducting sale of fruits under the name and style "G.S.S Fruits" in the shop room bearing Door No.II/834 and a bakery by name "Best Bakery" in the shop room bearing Door No.II/163 on the ground floor of the building owned by the third respondent. The petitioner further alleges that the third respondent wanted to evict him at any cost and for the same, the rent for the fruit stall was asked to be hiked to 2,000/- per day the rent for the bakery was asked to be hiked to 1,000/- per day, to which the petitioner did not yield. He alleges that the elder brother of the third respondent in collusion with municipal authorities, closed down his bakery and the respondent municipality refused to accept the licence from him stating that he is not a tenant. The State Electricity Board Officials were also won over leading to the disconnection of the electric supply to the tenanted premises. According to the petitioner, he has moved the Accommodation Controller under the Rent Control Act and the proceedings for restoration of the amenities are pending.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that he is a tenant under the third respondent and as the third respondent disputed the status of the petitioner as tenant, he filed O.S No.186 of 2012 before the Munsiff's Court, Attingal for a declaration that he is a tenant and also for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the third respondent and his men from causing obstructions to the petitioner's peaceful occupation of the shop rooms, and from evicting the petitioner otherwise than by due process of law. The petitioner points out that the Munsiff's Court has granted an ad- interim injunction against forceful eviction on 28.7.2012. The petitioner further alleges that the elder brother of the third respondent used to come to the petitioner's shop and make scenes in front of the petitioner's customers. The petitioner further alleges that at about 12 noon on 21.8.2012, he along with the office bearers of the Vyapari Vyavasayi Samithi had a discussion with the C.I of Police and consequently, he filed W.P(C) No.20361 of 2012 complaining Police harassment, which was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 4.9.2012 recording the submission of the Government Pleader that there would not be any interference by the Police in the civil dispute between the parties. The petitioner points out that the income from the aforesaid business is the sole source of his livelihood and now it is dwindled because of the illegal closure of the bakery.