JASEENTHA JAMES Vs. TALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P3 order dated 12.10.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Secretary of the Taliparamba Municipality, directing the 3rd respondent to demolish the illegal construction carried out in the building belonging to the 3rd respondent in which the petitioner is a tenant, failing which, action will be taken under Sec.406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and Rule 18 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. The said order is passed after providing an opportunity of hearing to the 3rd respondent landlord as well as the 4th respondent, tenant. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) The 3rd respondent is the owner of a building bearing No.TMC XIII-589-A2, which is let out to the petitioner by executing an agreement dated 06.06.2012, and the petitioner is running a dance school by name, 'Nrithanjali' in the said building. According to the petitioner, 3rd respondent is taking steps to evict the petitioner without resorting to the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and disturb the peaceful possession of the room occupied by the petitioner. Thereupon, petitioner was forced to approach the Munsiff's Court, Taliparamba by filing O.S.No.327 of 2018 seeking to restrain respondents 3 and 4 and their men from demolishing the separate hollow-bricks wall and forcibly evicting the petitioner from the room occupied by the petitioner. The Munsiff's Court has granted Ext.P2(a) order dated 07.09.2018 in I.A.No.2398 of 2018, restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the room occupied by the petitioner and from committing any act of waste until further orders.

(3.) Ext.P3 order has been passed by the 2nd respondent dated 12.10.2018, directing to demolish the unauthorized construction within 24 hours, failing which, the Municipality would initiate steps to demolish the building. The case projected by the petitioner is that, though the petitioner is the occupier of the room, no notice has been issued to her before passing Ext.P3 order. It is also the case of the petitioner that, there is a concrete hollow-bricks partition wall to separate the rooms occupied by the petitioner and the room occupied by the 4th respondent. That apart, it is submitted that, if at all there is any unauthorized construction, the same can be regularized by submitting proper application before the 2 nd respondent.