IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14913 of 2010(L)
1. N.K.CHANDRA BOSE, NIKARTHIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY
... Respondent
2. STATE WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
For Petitioner :SRI.ALEXANDER PETER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/06/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 14913 of 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was doing business in shop room
bearing No. CC 6/104, owned by the 2nd respondent since
1998, on rental basis. The shop was originally taken on
lease by the petitioner’s uncle one Sri. E.A. Balakrishnan
and after his death, the petitioner has been running the
business in the said premises, allegedly with the sanction
and knowledge of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner alleges
that the 2nd respondent demanded arrears of rent from 1998
-2003 as evidenced by Exts.P1 & P2. The petitioner paid
the same. Thereafter the lease agreement was allegedly
renewed up to 2008. However the lease was not extended
thereafter and rent was also refused to be received.
According to the petitioner this was with the intention of
evicting the petitioner, terming him as an unauthorized
W.P.(C)No. 14913 of 2010
-2-
occupant. In the above circumstances the petitioner
approached the Munsiff’s Court, Kochi and obtained an
injunction. Subsequently that O.S. was disposed of by the
Munsiff’s Court as per Ext.P10 judgment in the following
terms:
“1. Plaintiff shall not be evicted without serving Section 4
notice of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of
un-authorised occupants) Act, 1968.
2. Ext.B5 notice is not a proper notice issued to the
occupant of the rented premises as per the provisions in
the Act.
3. It is made clear that defendants have got every right to
evict the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions in the
Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Un-authorised
Occupants) Act.
4. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case I
direct the respective parties to bear their respective
costs in the suit.”
2. Petitioner now submits that contrary to the
directions of the civil court, without completing proceedings
under the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1968 the petitioner has been forcefully
evicted from the premises. Petitioner therefore seeks the
following reliefs :
“1) call for the records leading to Exhibit P11 show cause
notice and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.
W.P.(C)No. 14913 of 2010
-3-
2) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction to the respondents to restore the possession of
the rented premises CC No.6/104 in the boat jetty
premises to the petitioner and allowing him to run the
business in the shop and to renew the lease agreement
in the name of petitioner after receiving the arrears of
rent.”
3. On 18.05.2010, I passed the following interim
order:
“The learned Government Pleader shall get instructions
as to whether the petitioner has been evicted from the
preemies as alleged by the petitioner and if so, whether, before
eviction, an order has been passed under the Kerala Public
Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968.”
4. Today, the learned Government Pleader submits
that although Section 4 notice has been issued to the
petitioner no final orders have been passed before evicting
the petitioner. I am of opinion that, that is against the
provisions of the Act and also Ext.P10 judgment of the civil
court. It is unjust to evict the petitioner without passing a
considered order under the Act. In the above
circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
W.P.(C)No. 14913 of 2010
-4-
Possession of the shop room in question shall be
restored to the petitioner forthwith. The 2nd
respondent shall pass final orders pursuant to
Section 4 notice under the Kerala Public Buildings
(Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968
after affording an opportunity of being heard to
the petitioner and communicate the order to the
petitioner. Only after two weeks from the date
when a copy of that order is served on the
petitioner coercive proceedings shall be initiated
for eviction if the order authorises the same. The
same would also be subject to the right of the
petitioner to challenge the said order
appropriately and to seek interims orders.
S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
shg/