Kerala High Court
Kochunni Abdul Khader vs The District Collector on 23 September, 1969
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2012/26TH ASHADHA 1934
WP(C).No. 13888 of 2012 (I)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
KOCHUNNI ABDUL KHADER, AGED 73 YEARS
S/O.KOCHUNNI, MADATHIL HOUSE, MUMTHAZ MAHAL
PANAYIKULAM, AALANGAD, ERNAKULAM
PIN-683511.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
SRI.M.G.ANON
SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
(APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER SEC.13 OF THE KERALA BUILDINGS
LEASE AND RENT CONTROL ACT 1965)
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.
2. THE TAHSILDAR AND ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER
ALUVA, PIN-683101.
3. GEORGE JOSEPH
S/O.M.V.GEORGE, MAVELI, PALACE ROAD
ALUVA, PIN-683101.
BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-
07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC NO. 13888/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PETITION TO CONDONE DELAY OF 18 DAYS.
EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:(a): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE ALUVA MUNICIPALITY.
EXT.P6(B): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE ALUA MUNICIPALITY.
EXT.P6(C): PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE ALUVA
MUNICIPALITY.
EX.P6 (D): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE ALUVA MUNICIPALITY.
EXT.P7(a): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE ALUVA MUNICIPALITY.
EXT.P7(B): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE ALUVA MUNICIPALITY FOR
PAYMENT OF PROFESSION TAX.
EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT
KOCHI TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
KERALA HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXT.R3(A) : COPY FO THE LEASE DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND
FATHER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23/9/1969.
EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
18/1/2011.
/ TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JJ.
------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 13888 OF 2012
------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2012
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose,J Under challenge in this writ petition filed by the tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution is Ext.P5 order passed by the District Collector cum Appellate Authority under Section 13(6) of the Kerala Buildings Lease & Rent Control Act. By Ext.P5, the District Collector cum Appellate Authority has rejected an appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P2 order passed by the Accommodation Controller, Aluva. Ext.P2 order is passed by the Accommodation Controller, Aluva on Ext.P1 petition filed by the petitioner before him under Section 13( 2 ) of Act 2 of 1965 complaining that with the objective of compelling the petitioner to vacate the building of which he is in possession as a building tenant, the respondent/landlord has disconnected the water supply connection to the tenanted building. By Ext.P2, Ext.P1 W.P.(C). No. 13888/2012 2 was rejected by the Accommodation Controller mainly on two reasons. The first reason is that Sri. M.V.George, who is the landlord of the building as per the lease deed executed between him and the petitioner, is no more and the building is situated upon a property belonging to Sri. George Joseph son of Sri.M.V.George. The above reason of the Accommodation Controller does not appeal to us at all. It is Sri.George Joseph, who is arrayed as the respondent /landlord in Ext.P1. In all probability whatever right late M.V.Joseph was having over the building and its site was devolved upon Sri.George Joseph. In other words, Sri.George Joseph is at least a co-owner of the building if not the full owner.
2. The other reason stated in Ext.P2 is that the water supply connection to the building does not stand in the name of Sri.George Joseph. The submission of Sri.M.A.Abdul Hakhim learned counsel for the petitioner that the water supply connection to this building stands in the name of late M.V.George is not disputed at the Bar. If that is correct, there may be justification for interfering with Ext.P2. The District Collector in Ext.P5 rejected the appeal as time barred. It is true W.P.(C). No. 13888/2012 3 that the District Collector, the Appellate Authority under Section 13 (6) of Act 2 of 1965, has not been clothed with powers to condone the delay. But, we are of the view that on considerations of justice the District Collector should be enabled to entertain the appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P2.
We, therefore, set aside Ext.P5 and direct the first respondent Appellate Authority under Section 13 (6) to entertain Ext.P3 appeal as if the same has been filed on time. The District Collector will dispose of Ext.P3 on its merits in accordance with law after hearing both sides. The needful in compliance with the above direction will be done by the first respondent at his earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE.
dpk /True copy/ P.A to Judge.
W.P.(C). No. 13888/2012 4