IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 22031 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.SASIDHARAN, SON OF PADMANABHAN, S.N.VIHAR, KADATHOOR P.O., THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM-690 544. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM-695 003. 2. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KARUNAGAPPALLY-690 544. ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.22031/10 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR RECEIPT OF MONEY NO.26402, DATED 22.8.1991 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED EXECUTED BTWEEEN THE PETITIONER, HIS WIFE AND A.SATHEESH KUMAR, DATED 3.6.2002. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).517/07 DATED 12TH JANUARY, 2007. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 25.1.2007. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- W.P(C).No.22031 OF 2010 & I.A.No.5048 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.In paragraph 1 of this writ petition, the pleading is that the petitioner is in possession of rooms 1, 2 and 3 of the building in question. He proceeds to confine his reliefs in the writ petition to be referable to room No.3, that too, on the premise that the said room had been originally leased out to one Satheesh Kumar. Admittedly and evidently, there is no privity of contract between the Travancore Devaswom Board and the petitioner. In fact, the only ground raised in opposition to a threatened eviction is that the petitioner had been in occupation of the rooms for the last more than 17 years and such occupation would be treated as legal. This Court had granted an interim order interdicting dispossession of the petitioner on condition that he pays at WPC.22031/10 2 the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. The relief sought for was in relation to room No.3. Obviously therefore, the condition imposed is also only in relation to room No.3 We are unable to read the interim order in any other manner. 2.With the aforesaid, now the petitioner has applied for leave to amend the writ petition, enlarging its scope by bringing rooms 1 and 2 also within its purview. This is impermissible. For one thing, there is no link of any legal nature between the quality of the possession that the petitioner claims as regards room No.3, which is the subject matter of this litigation, and the quality of possession that he may claim as regards room Nos.1 and 2 over which he says that he has some other arrangement with the original licensee. Hence, the application for leave to amend the writ petition is dismissed. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner says that I.A.16719/10 was filed seeking modification of the interim order dated WPC.22031/10 3 12.8.2010. At one time, the Bench before which that matter came thought that the said application essentially seeks modification of the earlier order. Therefore, the matter was sent up to the Bench which passed the earlier order. However, that Bench was categoric in saying that the order dated 12.8.2010 is an interim measure and therefore, the Division Bench hearing the matter can proceed to decide it on merits, after hearing both sides. Obviously, the intention is clear; i.e., the interim order dated 12.8.2010 sought to be modified, even going by the views of the Bench which had passed that order, will govern the parties until otherwise modified. 4.At this point of time, having found that the petitioner has no shred of legal right to continue to cling on to possession of the rooms in question, we order that he will be permitted to continue in occupation for a period of three months, within which time, the Board will re-auction the right to hold the said rooms under lease or licence, as the case may be. The WPC.22031/10 4 petitioner will be at liberty to participate in such auction and until that is finalised, he will continue to hold room No.3 on the same terms as per the order dated 12.8.2010. That is, to say, he would pay Rs.10,000/- per month for room No.3. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. The TDB shall file report before the Registrar (General) of this Court as regards the action following this judgment, without fail, immediately after three months from now, failing which, it would be considered whether the Secretary, TDB and the Executive Officer are personally liable for any loss referable to the delay. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.30/6.