IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

TH WEDNESDAY, THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 24TH ASWINA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 9538 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S:

1 ASHARAF P., AGED 56 YEARS S/O. LATE UMMERKUTTY, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT ‘AASHIYAN’, KAYYATH ROAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101

2 K.P. MOHAMMED SIRAJ, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.LATE P.K. UMMER, AGED 47 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT FOUZIYA MANSIL, O.V. ROAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101 BY ADVS.

R.SURENDRAN S.MAYUKHA RESPONDENTS:

1 THE SECRETARY, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101

2 THE THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101

3 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

4 THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KANNUR, P.O.

PARASSINIKADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670563

5 A.K. SANEERA, AGED 42 YEARS W/O.RAZIK, RESIDING AT 'SAMEEGHAR', MADAPEEDIKA, THALASSERY, P.O. PARAL, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670671

6 SRI.M.P.RAZIK, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS H/O.A.K. SANEERA, RESIDING AT ‘ALRAZ’, KURICHIYIL P.O., PUNNOL, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670103 BY ADVS.

S.K.ADHITHYAN BALAMURALI KRISHNA M.

I.V PRAMOD (SC SMT.DEVI SHRI R., GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

16.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

............................................................

W.P(C) No. 16103 of 2023 .................................................................…

Dated this the 16^th day of October, 2024

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P11 order passed by the Secretary of the Thalassery Muncipality dated 03.02.2023 invoking powers under Section 411 of the Kerala Muncipality Act, consequent to a direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.36513 of 2022, filed by the 5^th respondent herein. This Court considered the request of the 5^th respondent herein, the landlord, to demolish a portion of the building based on the Structural Stability Inspection Report issued by the consultants of the Department of Civil Engineering, Government Engineering College, Kannur. In compliance with the direction of the High Court, notices were issued.

2. The Writ Petitioners in the instant case are the tenants occupying buildings bearing Nos.48/939 and 48/940. They contended before the Municipality that the building was strong and stable enough and there was no necessity for demolishing the building. They also pointed out that two Rent Control petitions were pending against them initiated by the landlord alleging arrears of rent and also for bona fide need of the father of the 5^th respondent herein. The Municipality by the order impugned found that the building was in a dangerous condition and granted two months to vacate the premises.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenge Ext.P11, contending that no notice preceding an action under section 411 was issued to them, the building they are occupying as tenants is not dilapidated, warranting a demolition. This Court taking note of the disputes involved in the case, passed an order on 28^th June 2024, directing the petitioners and respondents 5 and 6, to suggest two experts each, to conduct a structural audit of the building in question. Accordingly, names were suggested and as per orders of this Court dated 23^rd July 2024, this Court requested Dr.Rajeev P, Principal, College of Engineering, Thalassery, who was stated to be from the Civil Engineering Department, to inspect the building in question and file a report on the stability and safety of the building and also to suggest the measures to be taken to avert any danger.

4. A report has been filed with the following findings and conclusions:-

“5. Findings Retrofitting is not recommended in this structure due to the following reasons.

1. Structural limitations such as ex