IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 RSA.No. 661 of 2008() --------------------- AS.348/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE OS.263/2000 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,KOZHIKODE-II .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------- J.ANOOP, S/O.JAYARAJAN, AJANTHA, KALATHILKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------- KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== R.S.A. No. 661 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The plaintiff in the suit (O.S. No. 263 of 2000) on the file of the Munsiff's Court-II, Kozhikode is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The said suit was one for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Kozhikode Corporation from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the plaint schedule shop room by having recourse to the Kerala Public Buidings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 or by any other modes. The suit has been concurrently dismissed by the courts below. Hence this Second Appeal by the plaintiff. 2. The facts concurrently proved or admitted are as follows:- The plaint schedule shop room belonging to the defendant Corporation was taken on licence initially by one Augustine on 23.04.1994. The licence fee fixed was Rs.1700/-. Subsequently, the plaintiff entered into a partnership business along with the said Augustine and the partnership firm was conducting the R.S.A. No. 661/2008 : 2: business in the plaint schedule shop room. Thereafter, the partners decided to separate consequent on Augustine falling ill and retiring from the firm as well as the business. Thereupon, the plaintiff continued the business. Both the said Augustine and the plaintiff made a joint application to the defendant Corporation for transferring the licence in favour of the plaintiff. The said request was allowed by the Corporation which, however, enhanced the licence fee from Rs.1700/- to Rs.2550/-. According to the plaintiff/appellant, the enhancement of the licence fee was excessive and illegal. The plaintiff challenged before the District Collector the notice issued by the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.1,66,812/- which was the arrears of licence fee together with fine due from him. The challenge was, however, unsuccessful and the District Collector dismissed the appeal. It was thereafter that the present suit was filed. 3. I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below that the plaintiff who kept the licence fee and arrears, was liable to pay the same to the Corporation and the Corporation was well within its right to evict the plaintiff either by R.S.A. No. 661/2008 : 3: recourse to the provisions of the Kerala Public Buidings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 or such other modes legally available to the Corporation. The plaintiff was not entitled to keep the Corporation at bay. No question of law much less, any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv R.S.A. No. 661/2008 : 4: