P. SASIDHARAN Vs. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the recovery initiated by Ext.P3 miscellaneous bill and Ext. P4 demand notice. The short contention raised is that no recovery can be made under Sec. 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.

(2.) The petitioner was successful in an auction for a meat stall. A room for carrying on the vending of meat was allotted as per Ext.P1. The petitioner's contention is that a deed was also entered into. The petitioner's contention is that despite the allottment of the room and the possession being given to the petitioner no licence was issued to the petitioner for reason of pendency of W.P.(C)Nos.1205 & 1206/2003. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P2 to raise such a contention. However by looking at Ext.P2 no such contention can be sustained. Ext.P2 is only a notice requiring the petitioner to take a licence under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.

(3.) The Corporation has filed a detailed counter affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioner had not taken a licence and had continued business in the stall without paying rent to the Municipality. On repeated demands made for rent, eventually the petitioner surrendered the stall on 11.2005. Hence for the rent due to the Municipality Ext.P3 bill was issued and demand raised as per Ext.P4 is the contention.