Proper notice to tenants is essential before enforcing a demolition order under the Kerala Municipality Act.

JUDGMENT

Shaffique, J.

The appeal is filed by the additional respondents in the Writ Petition, who are tenants in a building. The building is owned by the writ petitioner and his brother. The the Writ Petition is filed for implementing an order passed by the Corporation under Section

411 of the Kerala Municipality Act .

2. The petitioner was directed by the Corporation to demolish the building on the basis of Exhibit P2 report. The petitioner made a submission to the Corporation that he was unable to do it himself, as he was old and therefore, requested the Corporation to take steps under Section 411 (2) of the Kerala Municipality Act and he offered to pay the cost of such demolition. Since no such action was taken by the Corporation, he filed the Writ Petition.

3. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the additional respondents got themselves impleaded and according to them, no WA.1279/12 2 notice was issued by the Secretary of the Corporation before issuing notice under Section 411 of the Kerala Municipality Act . It is their further case that this is only was an attempt by the land owners to evict them from the said premises and the said building is not in a dilapidated condition as stated in Exhibit P2.

4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Secretary of the Corporation to take appropriate action on Exhibit P3 representation made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. There is a further direction that other co-owner and also the tenants in the building should be given notice.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that an opportunity should be given to the appellants for challenging Exhibit P2 and according to the appellants, the building is still in a position, which is not in a dilapidated condition as suggested by the Corporation.

6. Since the learned Single Judge had already taken note of the contentions urged by the appellants and there is a direction to issue notice to the tenants and other co-owners before passing further orders, we do not think that any further direction is WA.1279/12 3 required in the matter. We do not think the right of the appellants as tenants will in any way be affected by such proceedings. It is open for the appellants to take all the contentions before the Secretary of the Corporation and if they are aggrieved by any such order, they are at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE vgs10.07