IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7448 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- PRAMOD,AGED 32 YEARS,S/O.P.K.PRASANNAN, RESIDING AT PANIKAM PARAMBIL,PRAMOD VIHAR, AZAD ROAD,KALOOR.P.O-682 017 AND THE SECRETARY, MARINE DRIVE GCDA COMPLEX,ALLOTTEES ASSOCIATION, GCDA MARINE DRIVE COMPLEX,COCHIN-31. BY ADV. MR.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COCHIN-682 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.7448/2010-E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the removal of display boards in the G.C.D.A Marine Drive Shopping Complex. The petitioner complaints that it is being done in an arbitrary manner. He is an office bearer of an association of lessees in the complex. 2. The petitioner has produced Ext.P2 lease deed executed between G.C.D.A and one of the lessees in occupation. It is pointed out that the lease deed permits putting up of name boards, hoardings etc. and the shop owners are strictly complying with the said conditions also. It is pointed out that the authorities of the G.C.D.A entered the premises and removed certain boards without serving notices to any of the shop owners. It is prayed that the respondent may be directed not to interfere with the name/display/sign boards of the petitioner and other lessees on their respective leasehold properties regarding business and products of them in Cochin Marine Drive Shopping Complex. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the G.C.D.A who has filed a statement. It is pointed out therein that the petitioner herein and another person was allotted space W.P.(C). No.7448/2010 -:2:- No.D7 in the respondents Shopping Complex at Marine Drive as per Ext.P2 lease deed which was terminated by order dated 01/01/2009. Challenging the order of termination, the petitioner had filed O.S.No.88/2009 before the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, and the same is pending. He is continuing in possession in the light of the interim order passed by the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam in the said suit. Clause 16(a) of Ext.P2 lease deed is also relied upon to show that the tenants have no right to put up any display board/advertisement board in the premises without previous consent in writing from the respondent. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has not obtained any permission from the respondent to put up any name/display/sign boards. But, the respondent has not objected for putting up one board for each shop at the entrance, for displaying the name and products. 4. It is further pointed out in paragraph (3) that several complaints were received by the respondent regarding unauthorised hoardings/display boards at various places at the Marine Drive Shopping Complex. According to the respondent, notice dated 08/09/2009 was also issued to all shop holders requesting to remove all unauthorised boards within seven days. Thereafter, the respondent issued notice dated 18/01/2010 to all the shop/office space W.P.(C). No.7448/2010 -:3:- holders for convening a meeting to discuss the issues connected with the above problem and the meeting was held on 02/02/2010 which was presided over by the Chairperson of the G.C.D.A. It is submitted that in the meeting, some of the tenants offered co-operation but, since many of the tenants did not remove the unauthorised boards, the respondent had to remove them and are in the process of completing the work. 5. The main problem explained by the respondent in the statement is that in the Marine Drive Complex many of the shop holders have erected unauthorised sign boards/hoardings and also advertisement boards of various companies in the corridors, handrails, exterior and interior walls of the complex, resulting in awkward appearance of the entire shopping complex. It is also mentioned that they came to know that some external agencies formed an association and started collecting huge money for erecting advertisement boards in various places in the shopping complex. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that no outsiders can be allowed to erect unauthorised boards in the shopping complex. What is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that removal is effected without furnishing adequate W.P.(C). No.7448/2010 -:4:- notices. It is also pointed out that if forceful removal is effected, valuable boards/hoardings etc. will be damaged. It is only reasonable that sufficient notice is given to tenants to remove any of the objectionable and unauthorised boards other than that is permitted by the lease deed. Therefore, G.C.D.A will give seven clear days' notice to any of the occupants/tenants who have erected any of the objectionable unauthorised boards before removing it. If the tenants are not removing the same inspite of serving of notice, it will be open to the G.C.D.A to take appropriate action to remove it. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms