AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.—The petitioner was a workman in the Woodland Estate and in that capacity allowed to occupy a building as quarters. On retirement in the year 1999 he did not vacate the building and this resulted in the third respondent filing an application under Rule 63 of the Kerala Plantation Labour Rules, 1959 before the second respondent. The petitioner took the stand that the building did not belong to the third respondent and that the actual owner had entered into a rental arrangement with him, whereunder he was liable to pay Rs. 50/- per month. The said contention, however, did not find favour with the second respondent and the petition was allowed. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the first respondent and that was also dismissed vide Ext. P2 and that is why the petitioner has approached this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Exts. P1 and P2 are bad for three reasons. Firstly, it is stated that the second respondent lacked in jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in so far as the building in question did not belong to the third respondent and the petitioner has a valid contention with regard to leasehold right and only the civil court was competent to go into that aspect. The second aspect is that, in any event, there is denial of opportunity in so far as the second respondent rejected an application filed by the petitioner seeking to examine the stamp vendor, who allegedly sold the stamp paper in which a document relied on by the third respondent was written. Thirdly, it is contended that due to continuous occupation for several decades the petitioner has attained a "certain status" and as such without proper notice he cannot be evicted.
The leaned counsel for the 3rd respondent refuted the contention and submitted that what is involved is official quarters provided to the petitioner and once he retires he is bound to surrender possession of the same after the grace period allowed under the Rules.
At the first blush it would appear that the second respondent might not have jurisdiction to go into the contentions, in so far as it is the admitted case of the third respondent that after partition of 1996 this building went to the share of one Dr. Ramdas. However, on a deeper analysis of the question it can be found that the said contention has no force. It is not necessary that the quarters provided to a workman should be within the plantation itself or that the quarters should belong to the Management. It could be rented accommodation and it could be located even beyond the limits of the plantation. If that is so, there is nothing wrong for the Management entering into an arrangement with the person who got title over the building in question in subsequent partition for permission to continue the workman until his retirement. It is the admitted case of both sides that Dr. Ramdas is the actual owner of the building after the partition of 1996 and that he is none other than the brother of the third respondent. At the same time, Ext. P1 would show that Dr. Ramdas gave evidence in support of the case of the third respondent that under an oral arrangement he had agreed for continuance of the petitioner in the building until retirement. If that is so, certainly the building is question become the official quarters of the petitioner, in which case under Rule 61 the second respondent has jurisdiction to go into the application filed before him.
It is true that the application filed by the petitioner before the second respondent seeking to examine the stamp vendor was turned down; but nothing follows therefrom because the arrangement that the third respondent has entered into with Dr. Ramdas, according to the oral evidence of Dr. Ramdas himself, was not a written arrangement. May be, the third respondent may attempt to rely on a document as well. But even independent of any such document, the oral evidence of Dr. Ramdas shows that there was an arrangement between the brother and his sister, whereby the building in question was allowed to be continued as official quarters of the petitioner.
As regards the third argument, I fail to understand what the learned counsel means. "Certain status" as regards a building is something unknown to law. No provision of law is relied on to show that the petitioner is entitled to get statutory notice before eviction. Continuance of official quarters for any number of years would not create any "certain status" to the occupant. Viewed from this perspective the impugned orders entered by the competent authorities do not deserve to be disturbed by interference by writ Court.
The Original Petition is found to be without any merit and it is dismissed.
When the judgment was pronounced, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for little time to vacate. Since he has been continuing in the building for long, it is only just and necessary that some reasonable time is allowed to shift. I allow him two months time from this date to surrender vacant possession to the third respondent.