IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2006 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1928 WP(C).No. 27861 of 2006(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MOHAMED ALI, AGED 39, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, VALIAVEETTIL HOUSE, ERIYAD, KODUNGALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR. 2. TOWN PLANNER, CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, OFFICE OF CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR. 3. KUMARAN, MARAKKATH HOUSE, VAZHAPILLY, CHOWAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO. 27861 of 2006 ---------------------------------- Dated this 15th day of December, 2006 JUDGMENT The issue which the petitioner raises in this writ petition is the validity of the approved plan and building permit on the basis of which the respondent Landlord seeks to evict the petitioner. Ext.P1 order passed by the Rent Control Court will show that the Rent Control Court has incorporated a condition that actual eviction will be effected only after the petitioner produces approved plan and licence for the proposed reconstruction. On going through the order dated 8.2.2006 passed by the Execution Court in E.A. No.261/2006 it is seen that the issue highlighted by the petitioner in this writ petition was raised by him before the Execution Court also. The Execution Court referred to certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and repelled the contentions of the petitioner. I am informed that against the order passed by the Execution Court on E.A. 261/2006, the present petitioner filed an unsuccessful revision under Section 14 of the Act before the District Court (R.C. R.P. No. 1/2006). That R.C.R.P. was dismissed by the District Court. WPC No. 27861/2006 2 2. Sri.Sreekumar the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 8 submits that the order of the District Court in RCRP No.1/2006 was not even challenged by the present petitioner. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition only when the dismissal of RCRP 1/2006, a fresh order of delivery was passed by the Execution Court. Therefore it will not be legally possible for the petitioner to approach this court now earlier. Not that I do not find any force in the submissions of Sri.Sreekumar but since the District Court is in seizin of the matter now, I dispose of this writ petition directing the District Court to dispose of RCRP 4/2006 at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. It is needless to say that the District Court will permit both sides to urge all contentions which are legally available to them and actually arise for decision. The writ petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Judge dpk WPC No. 27861/2006 3