NAZEER Vs. RDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the tenants of 'two buildings' within the meaning of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act under the third respondent. The premises occupied by the petitioner in O.P. 13989 of 1995 is XXVI/816 and that occupied by the petitioner in O.P. 14123 of 1995 is XXVI/817. There were two other rooms or units in the said building having numbers XXVI/818 and XXVI/819. The said two units were occupied by two other tenants under the third respondent. All these separate units were part of a multi storied structure. The petitioners have approached this court challenging the proceedings initiated for the demolition of the structure under S.133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The notices Exts.P1 and P3, in that behalf issued to the petitioners are sought to be challenged. Ext. P1 is the preliminary notice issued to the third respondent landlord and Ext. P3 is the notice by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alappuzha posting the case to 23-8-1995 for enquiry with notice to the petitioners herein.

(2.) From the counter affidavit it is revealed that subsequently, the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order in respect of the premises bearing Nos.818 and 819 and the tenants in occupation of those units had left the premises and the premises were demolished. No order was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in respect of the units occupied by the petitioners, Door Nos. 816 and 817 in view of the pendency of these Original Petitions. The order passed in that behalf by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is produced along with the counter affidavit of the third respondent and is marked as Ext.R3(e) in both the original petitions.

(3.) According to the petitioners, the attempt of the third respondent landlord was to bypass the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and this was an attempt to get the tenants thrown out of the premises. This is strongly denied by the landlord who points out that a portion of the structure had earlier collapsed and the tenants in occupation of building Nos. 818 and 819 had already left the premises and an order for demolition had been passed and carried out. It is also pointed out that the whole proceeding arose out of an application filed by one Mariam Haji Moosa, the neighbouring owner who complained of obstruction due to the collapse of a portion of structure and danger to life, because of the dangerous condition of the structure. It is pointed out that the landlord had not approached the Rent Control Court even for getting the tenants evicted and she should not be responsible for any damage caused to the neighbouring owners or pedestrians by the collapse of the entire structure. It is pointed out that the structure was about 60 to 70 years old and being built of laterite stones and lime mortar, was in a dangerous condition.