Judicial intervention is not permissible when statutory remedies are available under relevant eviction laws.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order issued under the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’) and the consequential Ext.P6 notice.

2. Petitioner had entered into a lease arrangement with the 3^rd respondent. The said lease was renewed till 31.12.2013 as per Ext.P3 lease deed. Thereafter, petitioner has been continuing in occupation. Respondents allege that the continued occupation by the petitioner is unauthorised and accordingly, Ext.P4 order dated 08.05.2023 was issued under Section 5 of the Act. Subsequent, to Ext.P4 order, a notice was issued as Ext.P6 dated 05.12.2023 demanding an amount of Rs.36,31,000/- due from the petitioner. It is thereafter, that this writ petition was filed.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of 3^rd and

4^th respondents.

4. When the matter came up for consideration, on

18.12.2023, this Court directed that the eviction proceedings against the petitioner be deferred, which interim order has been extended from time to time.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd and 4^th respondents as well as the learned Government Pleader.

6. The petitioner has been issued with an order of eviction under the Kerala Public Building (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1968. The said order is appealable under Section 10 of the Act. Concededly, no appeal has been preferred against the said order. It is only consequent to Ext.P6 demanding payment of money due from the petitioner that this writ petition has been filed. By the interim order, petitioner’s eviction has been directed to be deferred.

7. Though petitioner has challenged Ext.P4 as well as Ext.P6 in the writ petition, I am of the view that the petitioner has to work out his remedies against Ext.P4 under the Act. The writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to interfere with the orders of eviction issued under Section 5 of the Act.

8. On noticing the disinclination of this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel sought permission to proceed against the impugned order before the statutory authority.

9. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to pursue his statutory remedies, in accordance with law.

Hence, this writ petition is disposed of reserving the liberty of the petitioner to initiate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act against Exts.P4 and P6. It is clarified that, if the petitioner avails the statutory remedies within ten days from today, the period spent by him from 15.12.2023 (date of filing of the writ petition) till today (28.01.2026) shall stand excluded, while computing the period of limitation.

Sd/-