Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36518
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAFEEQ – Appellant
Versus
THRIPANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH – Respondent
WP(C)/23586/2022
SRI. P.VENUGOPAL, SC SRI. C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL SRI. B.S SYAMANTHAK - GP
Statutory tenants must be allowed to present their case before any demolition order affecting their rights can be finalized, as procedural fairness is pivotal.
Headnote:
Tenancy - Statutory Tenancy - Code of Criminal Procedure Section 133 - The court analyzed the provisions under Section 133(1)(d)(iv) to uphold statutory protections for tenants while ensuring that public safety concerns are adequately addressed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, claiming to be statutory tenants of a building, sought relief against a demolition order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate after a building was damaged by a lorry. They claimed that the order was influenced by the landlord and sought a hearing before final orders were made.
Issues: Whether the petitioners' concerns were adequately addressed in the demolition order process, and if they had the right to be heard regarding the risks posed by the building.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that procedural fairness requires that tenants be given an opportunity to respond to actions that may affect their occupancy rights, particularly when a demolition order is concerned.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition directing notice to be given to all parties before the demolition process proceeds.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners claim to be statutory tenants of the 4th respondent in respect of three shop rooms. According to the petitioners, the building rented out to them got damaged when a lorry hit against the building. The petitioners carried out repair works and continued their business in the said premises. While so, pursuant to reports of the Secretary of the Panchayat and the Assistant Engineer of the Public Works Department, the additional 5th respondent, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tirur issued Ext.P1 show cause notice cum provisional order under Section 133 (1)(d)(iv) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the 4th respondent, the landlord, to demolish the building. The petitioners contend that, Ext.P1 has been issued at the behest of the 4th respondent, the landlord on oblique reasons.
2. The petitioners filed Ext.P2 reply before the additional 5th respondent. They apprehend that the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 will be finalised without considering Ext.P2 or without hearing them.
3. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the contentions of the petitioners in the writ petition and stating that the building is in a very dangerous situation after the accident and that the petitioners have vacated the premises without paying the arrears of rent and the 4th respondent was heard before passing Ext.P1 order.
4. Since it is stated that the building poses threat to the occupiers and the passers-by, the additional 5th respondent is directed to pass orders pursuant to Ext.P1 with notice to the petitioners, the 4th respondent and the Panchayat within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the building shall not be demolished, unless it is an imminent danger to the public, occupants and passers-by.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.
Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE
05/2022 PASSED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TIRUR DATED
25.06.2022.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY THE APPLICATION CMP /2022 IN CMP NO. 05.2022 (UN NUMBERED) FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TIRUR DATED
13.06.2022.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.
