IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2007 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1929 WP(C).No. 10561 of 2007(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SHARON M.J. AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.MARY JOSEPH CELINE, FLAT NO.S.(PART-T)VTH FLOOR DIWANS CHAMBERS, DIWANS ROAD, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, REP. BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, THE 2ND PETITIONER, MARY JOSEPH CELINE. 2. MARY JOSEPH CELINE, AGED 51 YEARS, FLAT NO.S.(PART-T)VITH FLOOR, DIWANS CHAMBERS, DIWANS ROAD, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU, SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ, SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH, SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR, SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. W.P.(C). NO.10561/2007: 4. WIZMANN HOMES LIMITED, 40/4804, 3RD FLOOR LAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M.G.ROAD, NEAD PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI -682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. 5. GLADIS JOSEPH, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.FRANCIS GEORGE, RESIDING AT 841, L.I.G. PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI- 36. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY, SRI.JOSHY THANNICKAMATTAM, GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.10561/2007: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT DTD. 20/02/2000 EXECUTED BY AND BETWEEN THE R.5. AND THE P.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 21/03/07 SUBMITTED BY THE P.2. TO THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 21/03/07 SUBMITTED BY THE P.2. TO THE R.1. //TRUE COPY// prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No. 10561 OF 2007-G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of March, 2007. JUDGMENT The petitioners contend that they are tenants of the fifth respondent. They have placed Ext.P1 stating that it is a rent agreement, but it is only a development agreement between the fifth respondent and the builder. So much so, I do not find any way for the petitioners to prima facie show that they are tenants of the premises. Writ petition fails. Dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/-