Partly allowed

R.Purushothaman, v. the Estate Officer

Kerala HC27 Sept 2021WA/1167/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal arose from a Single Judge's rejection of a petition seeking retention of company quarters after retirement. The court dismissed the appeal but granted a conditional stay, directing the company to provide two weeks for voluntary vacance provided an unconditional undertaking is filed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed, though respondents are directed to grant two weeks for voluntary vacance subject to an unconditional undertaking by the appellant.

R.Purushothaman, Vs the Estate Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

W.A.No.1167/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶8

MONDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 5TH ASWINA, 1943

¶9

WA NO. 1167 OF 2021

¶10

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2021 IN WP(C) 15998/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶11

APPELLANT:PETITIONER IN W.P(C)

¶12

R.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. S. RAMALINGAM, QUARTER NO.502/08, FACT (CD) TOWNSHIP, AMBALAMEDU P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 303.

¶13

BY ADVS. JOY C. PAUL BOBBY GEORGE SHEMILY T. PEARL MATHEW

¶14

RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS IN W.P(C)

¶15

1 THE ESTATE OFFICER, THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICAL TRAVANCORE, COCHIN DIVISION, AMABALAMEDU. 2 TEH FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICAL TRAVANCORE LTD(FACT LTD.) REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, HAVING OFFICE AT UDYOGAMANDALAM, ERNAKULAM-683 501.

¶16

3 MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KINFRA HOUSE, 31/2312, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM-695 010. BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR FOR R1, R2 SHRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN, SC, KINFRA (R3) K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.A.No.1167/2021

¶19

¶20

ALEXANDER THOMAS & A. BADHARUDEEN, JJ.

¶21

================================

¶22

W.A No.1167 of 2021

¶23

[arising out of the judgment dated 27.08.2021 in W.P(c).No.15998/2021]

¶24

================================ Dated this the 27^th day of September, 2021

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶27

The appellant herein had filed the instant W.P(C).No.15998/2021

¶28

before this Court with the following prayers:( see page No.19 and 20 of the paper book of this appeal)

¶29

“i) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order, directing the 1^st respondent to reconsider and pass orders on Exhibit-P5 and Exhibit P6 representation after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and further directing the 1^st respondent to keep in abeyance Exhibit-P2 and Exhibit P3 and all further proceedings in furtherance of the same till April, 2022.

¶30

ii) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order, directing the 1^st respondent to restore the Electricity and water connection to Quarter No.502/08, FACT (CD) Township, Ambalamedu P.O, Ernakulam

¶31

and

¶32

iii) Such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶33

The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides noted

¶34

that the petitioner is an employee who had already retired from the

¶35

service of the respondent Fertilizers and Chemical Travancore Ltd. (FACT Ltd.) and that he has been continuing in occupation of the quarters given by the respondent company for a long time and that he had already suffered adverse eviction orders from the Estate Officer as per the provisions contained in the Public Premise

¶36

W.A.No.1167/2021

¶37

¶38

(Eviction and Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and that in view of the long lapse of time after the retirement, his request for further time to vacate the premises, cannot be acceded to by this Court, etc. It is aggrieved by the above said judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 27.08.2021 dismissing the above W.P(C), that the petitioner therein has filed the present intra-court appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.

¶39

Heard Sri.Joy C.Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the W.A/petitioner in W.P(C), Sri M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned Standing Counsel for the FACT appearing for R1 and R2 and Sri. P . U.Shailajan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for KINFRA/R3.

¶40

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent FACT would submit that the petitioner has retired from the service of the said company as early as in April, 2019 and he has already suffered adverse eviction orders issued by the statutory Estate Officer in terms of the provisions contained in the aforesaid Eviction Act, 1971 and that the land in which the above said building has already been sold by the respondent FACT to the respondent KINFRA and that no further time may be granted by this Court, as otherwise it may set a

¶41

W.A.No.1167/2021

¶42

¶43

bad precedent. We had also requested Sri. P.U.Shailajan , the learned counsel for the KINFRA appearing for R3 to get instructions. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent KINFRA would also submit that his party urgently requires the land in question and the land in which the above said building has been constructed has already been transferred by the FACT to the respondent KINFRA and that in view of the lapse of more than 2 ½ long years after the retirement of the appellant, this Court may not show any more indulgence to the party concerned and that the respondent KINFRA immediately requires the land in question.

¶44

Having regard to these submissions of both sides, we are not in a position to hold that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the W.P(C) is in any manner perverse or illegal. More than 2 ½ long years have elapsed after the retirement of the petitioner from the service of the FACT as early as in April, 2019. He has already suffered eviction order at the hands of the statutory Estate Officer. Under these circumstances, the plea cannot be entertained by this appellate Court. However, the respondents may grant 2 weeks' time to the appellant/petitioner to voluntarily vacate the premises, subject to the condition that the appellant shall

¶45

W.A.No.1167/2021

¶46

¶47

immediately file an affidavit/ unconditional undertaking before the respondent FACT that he would vacate the premises in question within the aforesaid outer time limit of 2 weeks. If such an affidavit is filed by the appellant unconditionally undertaking to vacate the premises within the said time limit of 2 weeks, then no coercive steps may be taken by the respondents to evict the petitioner till the expiry of the said outer time limit of 2 weeks. Thereafter in case the appellant does not file the above said unconditional affidavit/undertaking or he does not comply with the undertaking made by him in the affidavit to vacate the premises in 2 weeks, then respondents 1 and 2 will be at liberty to take coercive steps against the petitioner in the manner known to law.

¶48

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeal will stand dismissed.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE

rtr/

W.A.No.1167/2021

APPENDIX OF WA 1167/2021

¶57

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURE

¶58

Annexure AI COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE OF APPELLANT DATED 9/4/1992. Annexure A2 COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF WIFE OF APPELLANT DATED 8/3/2016. Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 5 OF THE PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 DATED 25/1/2020.

R.Purushothaman, v. the Estate Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Purushothaman, v. the Estate Officer

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

Food Corporation of India Vs Anees A.K

Moly.P Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala, Vs M.Raju

M.E. Ouseph Vs Kerala Water Authority

Nadakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No 1874 Vs State of Kerala

Kochi Municipal Corporation Vs State of Kerala