Mujeeb Rahman vs Devadasan

Ziyad Rahman A. A., J.

The 3rd respondent in the writ petition has approached to this Court challenging the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, wherein a direction has been issued to the 2nd respondent Municipality to remove the unauthorized construction which allegedly carried out by the petitioner who is the tenant in the building of the writ petitioner, within a period of three weeks. There was a further direction to the Municipality that the notice to the writ petitioner/landlord intimating the charges within three weeks from today shall also be issued and thereupon the writ petitioner shall make the payment towards the charges for demolishing the unauthorized construction.

The main grievance highlighted by the appellant, who is the tenant in the said building is that, no notice of any of the proceedings have been issued to him. However, on perusal of the statement submitted by the Municipality it is seen averred that, after receiving a complaint submitted by the writ petitioner/landlord, proceeding under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act was initiated by issuing notices in this regard to the appellant herein. However, the learned counsel for the appellant disputes the receipt of the said notice.

In such circumstance, after considering all the relevant aspects, we are of the view that, the writ appeal can be disposed of, with a modification of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge by clarifying that, the removal of unauthorized construction, if any, in the premises shall be carried out by complying with the statutory requirements as contemplated under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, by issuing notices to the affected parties including the appellant.