SREENIVASAN Vs. CORPORATION OF CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sought a declaration that Ext. A3 order issued by the defendant to evict him from the premises concerned is incompetent and unenforceable. He also sought for an injunction not to enforce it. His suit was dismissed concurrently. Therefore, this Second Appeal mainly raising a substantial question of law whether a person in possession of a public building on the basis of a licence issued by the concerned public authority could be said to be in unauthorised occupation merely because the period fixed in the licence is over

(2.) It is an admitted case that the premises is owned by the respondent local authority. It is also admitted by the respondent as averred in the written statement that "the plaintiff was only permitted to use the plaint schedule building under a bare licence granted by this defendant upon the plaintiff's executing a licence deed". Thus, the transaction between the parties is admitted by the defendant as a licence.

(3.) It is also an admitted case that Ext. A3 order is issued in terms of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968. It is that Act which is enforced against the plaintiff by issuing an order and threatening eviction. It was at that time he filed the suit.