Dismissed

C.a.Ibrahim v. the Mangalpady Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC24 May 2012WP(C)/2459/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants filed a writ petition to quash notices demanding surrender of possession and seeking a declaration against specific eviction rules. The High Court held that as the lease had expired and the floors were not renewed, the Panchayath was entitled to demand vacant possession and the notices contained nothing illegal. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petition dismissed.

C.a.Ibrahim Vs the Mangalpady Grama Panchayath — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2012/3RD JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2459 of 2012 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. C.A.IBRAHIM, AGED 55 YEARS,

¶8

S/O. ABDUL KHADER, MAILTHOTTY HOUSE, UPPALA P.O.,

¶9

KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

2. YOUSUF HAJI, AGED 57 YEARS,

¶11

S/O. MOHAMMED, MALLANGAI, MANGALPADY P.O.,

¶12

KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶13

3. ABDUL RAZAK , AGED 34 YEARS,

¶14

S/O. ANDU, RESIDING AT NEAR UPPALA GATE, UPPALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶15

4. MAJEED , AGED 45 YEARS,

¶16

S/O. P.C.MAMMU, P.C.MANZIL, CHC ROAD,

¶17

KUMBALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶18

5. SANDYA SHENOY, AGED 42 YEARS,

¶19

W/O. SHIVA KUMAR, MALLANGAI, MANGALPADY P.O.,

¶20

KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶21

6. SHASHI KANTHA , AGED 50 YEARS,

¶22

S/O. SEENAPPA, VAISHALI, UPPALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶23

7. U.K.NARAYANAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. AITHAPPA, PACHILAMPARA, UPPALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶24

8. VISHVANATHA SHENOY , AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARA SHENOY, AILA, UPPALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶25

9. PURUSHOTHAMA, AGED 54 YEARS,

¶26

S/O. SHEKARA, JAYA NAGAR, UPPALA P.O.,

¶27

KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶28

10. ISMAIL, AGED 40 YEARS,

¶29

S/O. MOHAMMED, FOUSI MANZIL, CHULLI, UPPALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶30

11. ABDUL KHADER , AGED 57 YEARS,

¶31

S/O. MOHAMMED KUNHI, MANNANKUZHI, UPPALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶32

LSN

¶33

WP(C).No. 2459 of 2012 (F)

¶34

12. ATHAPPA SHETTY , AGED 63 YEARS,

¶35

S/O. SANKAPPA SHETTY, MULINJA, UPPALA P.O.,

¶36

KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶37

13. MOHAMMED HANEEF , AGED 40 YEARS,

¶38

S/O. LATE MOIDEEN KUNHI, BAIDALA HOUSE,

¶39

MANGALPADY P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶40

BY ADVS.SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE SMT.CISSY MATHEWS

¶41

RESPONDENT(S):

¶42

THE MANGALPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANGALPADY P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 324. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN BY ADV. SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD KUNHI

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

LSN

¶45

WP(C).No. 2459 of 2012 (F)

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶48

EXT.P1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 9TH PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.
EXT.P2 :	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DEMANDING SURRENDER OF POSSESSION.
EXT.P3 :	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DEMANDING SURRENDER OF POSSESSION.
EXT.P4 :	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DEMANDING SURRENDER OF POSSESSION.
EXT.P5 :	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DEMANDING SURRENDER OF POSSESSION.
EXT.P6 :	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DEMANDING SURRENDER OF POSSESSION.
EXT.P7 :	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER DEMANDING SURRENDER OF POSSESSION.
EXT.P8 :	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER DEMANDING SURRENDER OF POSSESSION.
EXT.P9 :	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH PETITIONER DEMANDING SURRENDER OF POSSESSION.
EXT.P10:	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH PETITIONER DEMANDING SURRENDER OF POSSESSION.
EXT.P11:	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH PETITIONER DEMANDING SURRENDER OF POSSESSION.
EXT.P12:	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 10TH PETITIONER DEMANDING SURRENDER OF POSSESSION.
EXT.P13:	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 11TH PETITIONER DEMANDING SURRENDER OF POSSESSION.
EXT.P14:	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 12TH PETITIONER DEMANDING SURRENDER OF POSSESSION.
EXT.P15:	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 13TH PETITIONER DEMANDING SURRENDER OF POSSESSION.
EXT.P16:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS.

¶49

LSN

¶50

WP(C).No. 2459 of 2012 (F)

¶51

EXT.P16(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO EXT.P16 REPLY NOTICE.

¶52

EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN DTD.18.11.2011.

¶53

EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶54

EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶55

EXT.P20: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶56

EXT.P21: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.

¶57

EXT.P22: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.

¶58

EXT.P23: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.

¶59

EXT.P24: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER.

¶60

EXT.P25: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH PETITIONER.

¶61

EXT.P26: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH PETITIONER.

¶62

EXT.P27: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH PETITIONER.

¶63

EXT.P28: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 10TH PETITIONER.

¶64

EXT.P29: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 11TH PETITIONER.

¶65

EXT.P30: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 12TH PETITIONER.

¶66

EXT.P31: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 13TH PETITIONER.

¶67

EXT.P32: TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC AUCTION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD.23.1.2012.

¶68

WP(C).No. 2459 of 2012 (F)

¶69

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶70

LSN

¶71

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

¶72

W.P.(C)No.2459 of 2012

¶73

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2012

¶74

JUDGMENT

¶75

Petitioners are the tenants of a building owned by the first respondent Panchayath. They are aggrieved by Exts.P2 to P15 notices and also Ext.P32 tender notice.

¶76

According to the petitioners, though the lease period has expired, they are continuing to pay the rent at the agreed rates and the Panchayath is also accepting the same. It is stated that while so they were issued Exts.P2 to P15 by which they have been informed that since the period of lease has expired and has not been renewed, the room has to be auctioned and that the petitioners should surrender the rooms within 15 days. They were also told that in the event they do not surrender the room and clear the amounts payable, the Panchayath will be compelled to take action in accordance with law, which obviously can only

¶77

result in their eviction.

¶78

These notices were followed by Ext.P32 tender notice. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed to quash Exts.P2 to P15 and P32, they are also seeking a declaration that

¶79

W.P.(C)No.2459 of 2012 2

¶80

they are liable to be evicted only in accordance with known process of law and not in terms of the Panchayath Raj(Removal of Encroachment and Imposition and Recovery of Penalty for Unauthorised Occupation)Rules, 1996.

¶81

Admittedly, the lease period has expired and inspite of the fact that it has not been renewed, the petitioners continue to occupy the rooms. If that be so, the Panchayath is entitled to demand vacant possession. In such a situation, if the tenants have refused to voluntarily vacate the premises, Panchayath is entitled to evict them, which can only be in accordance with law. This precisely is what the Panchayath has infomed the petitioners

¶82

in Exts.P2 to P15. I am unable to find anything illegal in these notices.

¶83

Insofar as the declaratory relief sought for by the petitioners is concerned, in my view, this is a premature request. The question of considering this relief arises only if the Panchayath seeks to evict the petitioners otherwise than in accordance with law. As already stated all that the Panchayath

¶84

W.P.(C)No.2459 of 2012 3

¶85

informed the petitioners is that if they fail to comply with the directions, Panchayath will be compelled to take action in accordance with law. Therefore, this relief does not arise for consideration at this stage.

¶86

I should also take note of the pleading in the counter affidavit, it shows that in the re-auction conducted in respect of the rooms occupied by people who are not parties to the writ petition, the bid amount received this time, is much higher than what is now being paid by the tenants. This factual position also justifies the steps taken by the Panchayath for conducting fresh auction.

¶87

The writ petition fails and it is dismissed.

¶88

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶89

C.a.Ibrahim v. the Mangalpady Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.a.Ibrahim v. the Mangalpady Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thankamma Kesavan Vs Rajkumar Singh

Shaji Poolath Vs R.Rajesh

Abdul Rasheed K.M. Vs Dr.S.Pradeepkumar

B.Balakrishnan Vs the Palakkad Municipality

M/S. Kerala State Construction Corporation Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Sivadas Vs District Collector