Kerala High Court
M/S.Csb Bank Ltd vs The District Collector on 16 November, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
SATURDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1941
WP(C).No.25953 OF 2019(T)
PETITIONER/S:
M/S.CSB BANK LTD., FORMERLY CATHOLIC SYRICAN BANK
LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT THRISSUR REP. BY
CHIEF AND PRINCIPAL OFFICER, CBS BANK LTD
THRISSUR MAIN BRANCH THRISSUR 680 020.
BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR 680 003.
2 THRISSUR CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR 680 001.
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR 680 001.
4 P.J. IYYAPPAN, AGED 58 YEARS
M/S. PAYANKAN FOOT WEAR, BLDG NO. XXI/422,
ROUND SOUTH, THRISSUR 680 020.
5 R. LATHA, AGED 48 YEARS
M/S. READYMADE BLDG. NO. XXI/422,
ROUND SOUTH, THRISSUR 680 020.
6 ROY IMMATTY, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. E.D. LONAPPAN,
M/S. EMMATTY PAPER MART, BLDG. NO. XXI/422, ROUND
SOUTH, THRISSUR 680 020.
7 ADDL.R7.THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD BUILDINGS SUB DIVISION, THRISSUR.
(*ADDL.R7 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
01.11.19 IN W.P.(C) 25953/19)
WPC 25953/19
2
R2 BY SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR
CORPORATION
R4 BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA
R4 BY ADV. SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN
R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.APPU
R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.NIMOD
R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.DEVADAS
R6 BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH
GP. SMT. POOJA SURENDRAN,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 25953/19
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, which is the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd, has approached this Court seeking that Corporation of Trissur be directed to take appropriate action under Section 411 of the Kerala Municipality Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) against the building bearing No.XXI/422 situated at the Swaraj Round, Trissur.
2. According to the petitioner-Bank, the building is in a highly dilapidated condition and unless it is immediately demolished, it will cause unspeakable consequences, both to life and property of the public; and therefore, prays that the Secretary of the Corporation be directed to initiate action under Section 411 of the Act immediately.
3. Smt.S.Karthika, Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon and Sri.P.G.Devadas, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6 respectively, submits WPC 25953/19 4 that their clients are tenants in possession of separate portions of the building in question and that the petitioner-Bank has already launched a litigation to evict them from there. They say that their clients, therefore, legitimately suspect that the present attempt is only a ruse to obtain such eviction without following the process of law. They say that in fact, a competent Rent Control Appellate Court is hearing the appeal filed by the Bank against the earlier order of the Rent Control Court which had dismissed their Rent Control Petition seeking eviction of their clients and that it is listed for further orders on 25.11.2019. They say that therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to demolish the building and thus obtain eviction of the tenants indirectly even when process for the same is still pending.
4. When I had heard the learned counsel WPC 25953/19 5 for the parties on the afore lines on 01.11.2019, when this matter had been listed, I thought it appropriate that this Court obtain a credible report regarding the condition of the building and for such purpose issued an order on that date in the following lines:
When I commenced hearing this matter, it became apparent that the presence of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings Sub Division, Thrissur, is necessary in the party array, so as to enable this Court to take a final decision in this writ petition. I therefore, suo motu implead the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings Sub Division, Thrissur, as additional respondent No.7. The learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the said respondent.
The essential issue in this case is whether the building in question is safe or otherwise. While the Corporation says that the building is unsafe, the party respondents say otherwise and they alleged that Corporation is dancing to the tunes of the owners of the property, namely the petitioner, to evict them under one pretext or the other.
Obviously, this is a matter
which this Court cannot
conclusively decide unless an
WPC 25953/19
6
expert visits the property and takes a dispassionate view. I am, therefore, of the view that the 7th respondent - Assistant Executive Engineer to immediately cause an inspection of the premises in question and file a report before this Court, detailing the condition of the building and as to his opinion, whether it is unsafe and requires to be demolished.
The inspection to be conducted by the Assistant Executive Engineer shall commence at 11.00 AM on 08.11.2019; on which day, the petitioner and the party respondents are at liberty to remain present in the premises and the said Authority will thereafter file a report before this Court not later than 14.11.2019.
Post on 15.11.2019.
5. Today, when this matter was called, the learned Government Pleader submits that an inspection report by the 7th respondent-
Assistant Executive Engineer of the PWD has been placed on record, along with a memo dated 14.11.2019, wherein the Engineer has found that the building is not safe.
6. I have examined the inspection report which reads as under:
WPC 25953/197
As per the directions given by the Honourable Cour, a physical inspection was conducted by me at CSB building on 8th November, 2019 and the report of the same is herewith submitting for your kind consideration.
The building is situating on the south side of round south road of Trissur Town. The building is a very old one and having an age of 7 decades or above. It was constructed as a double storied structure and has a central tower which resembling the architectural style of that period, projecting upwards from the roof of building to an approximate height of 5m. The walls of buildings are constructed with laterite stones and brickwork in lime mortar. The top tiled roof of the first floor as well as floor of the first floor are seen severely damaged and in a stage of collapsed manner. This floor slab is made of hordis blocks and is finished with combination mortar. Only a part of the first floor slab at the front portion remains satisfactorily now. All other portions of first floor slab had almostly sunken and collapsed. The western side and rear portion of building are at a stage of failure.
It is seen that the plastering works of walls have been pealed off from wall surface at many places and structural cracks on walls were developed at several portions of walls. It is to be noted that no maintenance works have been carried out to the building for the last few years.
Hence, considering these factors like longer life of building, the WPC 25953/19 8 proximity to the most crowded portion of town, high intensity of vehicular traffic along the road, the lack of proper or periodic maintenance of the building, the additional height of tower projecting upwards from the roof and the unpredictable weather conditions such as heavy rains & strong winds, the building as a whole is not safe at present and unfit for occupation. If an event of collapse occurs, it may lead to heavy loss of lives and properties of public.
7. On a reading of the above inspection report, I asked the learned counsel for the party respondents as to if they have anything to say on it and Smt.S.Karthika submitted that the report does not conclusively say that the building is unsafe or that her client cannot continue its occupation. She added that, in fact, the process for eviction of her client and other tenants had been commenced by the landlord as early as in the year 2009 and that at no point of time had they impelled a case that the building is unsafe. She, therefore, reiteratingly submitted that this writ petition is only a ruse to seek eviction of WPC 25953/19 9 the tenants.
8. Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent adopted the afore submissions of Smt.Karthika and complemented it by saying that even if the building is in a dilapidated condition, it is only because the landlord has consciously chosen not to conduct any repairs thereon. He says that had periodic repairs been done on it, the building would not have been rendered unfit, as has been now reported by the 7th respondent.
9. Sri.P.G.Devadas, learned counsel for the 6th respondent, tried to convince me, by reading from the afore extracted report, that the front portion of the building is still safe and that only the remaining portion requires to be demolished. He thus vehemently submitted that this writ petition may not be allowed, since it has the effect of permitting WPC 25953/19 10 the landlord to obtain eviction in a manner not known to law.
10. I have considered the afore submissions with great care and have also examined the pleadings and materials available.
11. It is indubitable that the report of the 7th respondent shows that the entire building is in a dilapidated condition and is absolutely unsafe and unfit for occupation. It may be true that this is because the periodic maintenance of the said building had not been done, but I cannot find this to be a reason why the Corporation should not be allowed to take necessary action under Section 411 of the Act, since what is important for this Court is not the internecine disputes between the parties, but the public health and safety at large. That apart, if the tenants had a case that the landlord was not maintaining the WPC 25953/19 11 building, I fail to understand why they did not choose to approach the competent Authorities, including the Accommodation Controller under the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act and seek appropriate orders or to have done the maintenance and then sought compensation from the landlord. Their conduct in not having done so certainly dissuades me from finding favour with their submission, that the building has become dilapidated only on account of lack of maintenance. Even if this be true, the tenants have remedies available in law and I am certain that they can invoke it, as they are advised.
12. As matters now stand, it is without doubt that the building is in an extremely dangerous condition and therefore, that it is unsafe and unfit for occupation. I am, consequently, of the view that the Secretary WPC 25953/19 12 of the Corporation must hear the petitioner as well as the tenants and take a final decision under Section 411 of the Act, adverting to the report of the 7th respondent extracted above, as expeditiously as is possible.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the Secretary of the Corporation to hear the petitioner as well as respondents 4 to 6 at 11 a.m. on 22.11.2019; on which day, all of them will remain present before the said Authority. The Secretary will then take a final decision under the provisions of Section 411 of the Act, not later than 30.11.2019 and communicate the resultant order to all parties.
Needless to say, since I have not considered the internecine disputes between the parties on its merits nor have I dealt with the rights of respondents 4 to 6 in their capacity as tenants, I leave all such WPC 25953/19 13 contentions open and also leave liberty to them to seek appropriate orders against the petitioner-Bank, as are necessary, from the competent Authority/Court as per law.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 25953/19
14
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
14.2.2015 SUBMITTED BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ON INSPECTION OF THE BUILDING.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF BUILDINGS WHICH ARE IDENTIFIED AS DANGEROUS/RUINOUS, DATED 9.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.6.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 6.7.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, THRISSUR DATED 11.4.2011 IN RCP NOS. 34/2009, 35/2009, 36/2009 AND 37/2009.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.3.2018 IN WPC NO. 22217/2015. EXHIBIT P8 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS REPORTS APPEARED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA/MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 12.8.2019.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.8.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.8.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DISTRICT COLLECTOR. WPC 25953/19 15 EXHIBIT P11 THE REQUEST LETTERS DATED 22.8.2019 TO R4 TO F6.
EXHIBIT P12 THE REPLY LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY 5TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R5(a): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (RTD) IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 21/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R6(a): COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE CHARTERED ENGINEER SHRI.H.NARAYANA SWAMY DATED 09/07/2007.
EXHIBIT R6(b): COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 05/09/2019.
EXHIBIT R2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THRISSUR CORPORATION