IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 28134 of 2008(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. ABRAHAM JACOB @ RAJAN, S/O.CHACKO, SINDIA ELECTRICALS, K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 2. ABHILASH.T.R., S/O.P.K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, THUSHARANJILI, VELLOOR POST, KOTTAYAM. 3. SURESH KUMAR P.R., S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PHOTO WORLD, NIDHIRI BUILDING, K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 4. JACOB KURIAN, S/O.KURIAN, HOTEL AMBASSADOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. MR.MATHEW JOHN (K), MR.AJEESH K.SASI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THOMAS J.NIDHIRI, S/O.JOHN, NIDHIRI HOUSE, MANNAKKANADU KARA, KURICHITHANAM VILLAGE, KURAVILANGADU. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), KOTTAYAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR), R2 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.28134/2008-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 09/12/2003. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 29/03/2004 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP). EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 12/07/2005 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DTD. 20/07/2005 BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT & PETITION DTD. 06/03/2006. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 19/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 06/03/2008 AS REPORTED IN 2008 (2) KLT 204. EXTP.8: COPY OF THE NTOICE DTD. 02/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE R.2. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 28134 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are tenants of shop rooms in a building owned by the 1st respondent herein. For amounts due from the 1st respondent to the State, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the property on which the building shop rooms in which in possession of the petitioners. That ended in sale of the property and purchase of the same by the State for Rs. 1/-. Consequently, the State became the owner of the property in question. Thereafter, by Ext. P8 notice, the Tahsildar informed the public that the said property belongs absolutely to the Government. The petitioners allege that after issuing Ext. P8 notice, the revenue recovery authorities have asked the petitioners to vacate the building. The petitioners contended that they being tenants eligible for protection under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, they cannot be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Declare that the petitioners are not liable to be evicted from the rooms referred to in Ext. P8 notice except in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act; (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 2 to 4 not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the rooms covered by Ext. P8; (iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 5th respondent to pass final order on Ext. P9 representation .” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State contending that in view of the first proviso to Section 11(1) of the Kerala W.P.C. No. 28134/2008 -: 2 :- Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the provisions of that Section does not apply to tenants whose landlord is the State Government or the Central Government or the public authority notified in that Act. Therefore, the State would contend that the petitioners cannot claim the protection of the Rent Control Act. 3. Now, the petitioners accept the legal position that insofar as the Government is now the owner of the property, the petitioners cannot lay any claim against the Government on the basis of the Rent Control Act. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners cannot be summarily evicted simply because the State Government has now become the owner of the land. He would further contend that even if they want to evict the petitioners , that can only be in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 4. The learned Government Pleader would contend that what has been issued is only Ext. P8, which only declares the ownership of the State in respect of the said property for public information. But the learned counsel for the petitioners asserts that as stated in the writ petition, subsequent to Ext. P8 notice, the officers of the Revenue Department has threatened the petitioners with immediate eviction. I need not go into the rival contentions on merits, insofar as the State also can evict the tenants from its buildings only in accordance with law. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioners shall be evicted from the building in question only after complying with the provisions of law applicable. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/