Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
KOTTAYAM EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/25727/2022
Writ - Tenancy - Kerala Co-operative Societies Act - Sections Not Explicitly Cited - The court upheld the eviction of the petitioner from a dilapidated building, emphasizing the necessity for safety and the municipality's policy to demolish and reconstruct, allowing representation for rehabilitation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Society licensed to occupy a room in a dilapidated bus stand complex, challenged eviction notices issued by the municipality, citing a lack of knowledge of previous court judgments that led to the eviction decision, and requested to defer the eviction until new construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court reasoned that the building's dilapidated condition warranted eviction for public safety, rejected the petitioner's claims regarding their ignorance of prior judgments, and noted that the municipality had taken necessary policy actions, providing them an opportunity to seek re-induction post-construction.
Issues: Whether the eviction of the petitioner was justified despite their claims of lack of prior knowledge of court orders and the necessity of rehabilitation arrangements during building reconstruction.
Ratio Decidendi: The condition of the building mandated eviction for safety reasons, and the municipality's decision to demolish and rebuild lacked arbitrariness, thus the petitioner had no right to contest after the existing court precedents.
Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed, eviction upheld.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2022 S.MANIKUMAR, CJ In the instant writ petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: a) Call for the records leading issuance of Exhibits P10, P11, P13 and P16 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent No.3 not to proceed with the steps taken by them to evict the petitioner from the Thirunakkara Bus Stand Complex (Building No FF-4) till the disposal of the writ petition (civil)
c) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No.3, not to proceed with the proposed demolition of the building and allowing the petitioner to continue occupying FF-4 till the completion of the proposed new building and rehabilitation.
d) To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P-18 representation.
e) Grant such other and further reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as heruender:
3. According to the petitioner, petitioner is a Society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969, having its Registered Office at Room No. TBSC FF-4, in the Thirunakkara Bus Stand Shopping Complex Building and occupying the said room, as a licensee under the Kottayam Municipality, represented by its Secretary, Kottaym - 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has extended the period of license up-to 31.03.2024
4. It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner is seriously aggrieved by the steps taken by the 3rd respondent to evict them immediately based on the judgment of this Court in W.P.© No.21823/2020 dated 12.11.2020 and the subsequent orders in the said wit petition therein and connected judgments &
orders in Contempt of Case © No.1176/2022 (Exhibit P-2 to Exhibit P-8).
5. According to the petitioner, they are not a party to any of the judgments and orders of this Court referred to above and that, therefore, eviction is sought for the demolition of the existing building and reconstruction of the new building, which is based on the contentions in the Writ Petition and that relevant facts were not brought before this Court
6. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the 3rd respondent Society has taken a decision No.19 on 17.05.2022, by which it was decided that, when the reconstruction starts, the occupants of the building should be rehabilitated to a portion of the building, which is not required to be demolished and that, Exhibit P- 13 and Exhibit P-16 notices, are contrary to the decision taken by the 3rd respondent on 17.05.2022. Therefore, the petitioner sent Exhibit P-17 representation requesting the Secretary, Kottayam Municipality, Kottayam – the 4th respondent to allow the petitioner to continue the occupation and that the demolition of the said building may be deferred till the final stage of construction.
7. Petitioner has also submitted that it is a fact that the DPR (Detailed Project Report) has not been formulated till now, with respect to the new construction and only after finalisation of DPR, it could be decided which are the portions of the existing building is to be demolished. Petitioner Society is having more than 3000 members and the Society has to function within the territorial limits, and that, without a strong room facility, the petitioner cannot function. According to the petitioner, in the said circumstances, if the petitioner is evicted from the present premises, it will affect hundreds of depositors and other public who is doing business with the petitioner. The 3rd respondent has already taken steps to evict the petitioner and it is in the said background that the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing the instant writ petition seeking the aforestated reliefs. 8. Taking note of th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
