1. I am considering these four writ petitions and propose to dispose them of jointly in this judgment since they involve, at least substantially, similar facts and circumstances and the relief to be granted in one would be dependent and axiomatic to that to be granted in the others. However, for the sake of convenience, I treat WP(C) No.39792 of 2016 as a lead case and all references to the documents unless otherwise specified in this judgment.

2. I have heard Sri. R.T. Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.39792 of 2016, Sri. R. Sunilkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.40031 of 2015, 12148 & 13202 of 2016, who also appears for the contesting respondents in WP(C) No.39792 of 2016, Sri. P.K. Manojkumar, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, Smt.Thushara James as also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents.

3. I do not propose to detail the facts involved in these cases in extenso, since it would not be necessary to consider all of them, as are pleaded or alleged in this writ petition, for resolution of the disputes presented in these cases. Since the controversy is in a narrow compass, I will deal with the fats with as much brevity as it would permit.

4. The petitioner in WP(C) No.39792 of 2016, claims to be a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, called Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (for brevity, the Artech) and they say that they have purchased an extent of 17 Ares 47 sq. meters comprised of in Survey Nos.1784, 1785 & 1786 of Sasthamangalam Village, Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext.P1 Sale Deed. They say that when they purchased the property, there was an old and dilapidated building remaining thereon, which is comprised of four separate shop rooms, which were already in the possession of various tenants under the original landlord. The shop rooms in question, the petitioner says, bears door numbers as T.C. Nos.17/ 452, 17/453, 17454 & 17/455. The petitioner asserts that the building was certified, by the competent Authorities, to be dilapidated and dangerous to general public, thus necessitating action at the hands of the Sub Divisional Magistrate under the provisions of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which order has been produced on record as Ext.P3. The petitioner submits that Ext.P3 makes it luculent that the building is infirm and that the integrity of its structure is severely compromised, thus causing itself to be a threat to the public at large. The petitioner points to Ext.P3 to show that the said order was passed by the Sub Collector, Thiruvananthapuram based on a report obtained from the competent Authority of the Public Works Department [PWD], as is warranted under Section 133 Cr. P.C. On the allegation that no subsequent action has been taken by the Municipality, in spite of Ext.P3 order finding the building to be dangerous, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking that directions to be issued to the concerned Authorities of the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram to take action under Section 411 of the Kerala Municipalities Act and to complete the proceedings thereunder leading to the demolition of the building in question.

5. As far as the other three writ petitions are considered, they are filed by the tenants, who are claiming possession of the shop rooms under valid tenancy with the original landlord. Sri. Sunilkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the tenants, submits that after purchase of the property by Artech, his clients had attorned to them and that they had even offered to pay the contractual rent, which was however refused by the Artech. The learned counsel vehemently submits that the action now initiated to demolish the building is only a facade and ruse adopted by Artech to obtain eviction of the tenants from the premises without having to go through the imperative procedure under