High Court Kerala High Court

K.S.Anil vs Kerala State Housing Board on 28 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.S.Anil vs Kerala State Housing Board on 28 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 32923 of 2010(M)


1. K.S.ANIL,UZHUVATHU KOMALAZHIKATHU HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :28/10/2010

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

            ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                W.P.(C) No. 32923 of 2010 M
            ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
              Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010

                           J U D G M E N T

Heard both sides.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking to

quash Ext.P3, an eviction order issued by the second

respondent, exercising his powers under Section 85 of the

Kerala State Housing Board Act, 1971. This notice is issued

on the basis that, as on 31-10-2010, petitioner is in arrears of

an amount of Rs.92,638/-, apart from other dues. Dispute of

the petitioner is that the quantification of the liability is

erroneous and that quantification in Ext.P3 has been done

without affording an opportunity to him.

3. If, as contended by the counsel, petitioner has a

dispute about the amount demanded, necessarily, the

quantification has to be done with notice to him. Having

regard to the fact that such an exercise has not been

undertaken so far, I feel the eviction now ordered is

premature.

W.P.(C) No.32923/2010
: 2 :

Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition, directing

that petitioner shall remit with the second respondent

Rs.50,000/-, within ten days from today, towards the dues

now demanded by Ext.P3. Subject to remittance as above, it

is directed that Ext.P3 will be treated as a notice, enabling the

petitioner to file his objections of the quantification of dues

made therein. If the petitioner files such an objection, the

second respondent will issue notice to him, consider his

objections and quantify actual amount due from the petitioner.

Thereupon, a fresh demand will be issued to the petitioner

and the petitioner will pay the amount quantified.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks