IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32923 of 2010(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- K.S.ANIL,UZHUVATHU KOMALAZHIKATHU HOUSE, MANNADI P.O., KADAMPANAD, ADOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA SMT.S.MEERA SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR, STATUTE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,PATHANAMTHITTA DIVISION, THIRUVALLA(COMPETENT AUTHORITY,UNDER THE ACT) R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32923 of 2010 M ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking to quash Ext.P3, an eviction order issued by the second respondent, exercising his powers under Section 85 of the Kerala State Housing Board Act, 1971. This notice is issued on the basis that, as on 31-10-2010, petitioner is in arrears of an amount of Rs.92,638/-, apart from other dues. Dispute of the petitioner is that the quantification of the liability is erroneous and that quantification in Ext.P3 has been done without affording an opportunity to him. 3. If, as contended by the counsel, petitioner has a dispute about the amount demanded, necessarily, the quantification has to be done with notice to him. Having regard to the fact that such an exercise has not been undertaken so far, I feel the eviction now ordered is premature. W.P.(C) No.32923/2010 : 2 : Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition, directing that petitioner shall remit with the second respondent Rs.50,000/-, within ten days from today, towards the dues now demanded by Ext.P3. Subject to remittance as above, it is directed that Ext.P3 will be treated as a notice, enabling the petitioner to file his objections of the quantification of dues made therein. If the petitioner files such an objection, the second respondent will issue notice to him, consider his objections and quantify actual amount due from the petitioner. Thereupon, a fresh demand will be issued to the petitioner and the petitioner will pay the amount quantified. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks