IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1601 of 2011(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.N.VIJAYAN, S/O.ANANDAN, AGED 48 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, VIJAY BHAVAN, VEGETARIAN CANTEEN, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, MALAMPUZHA DAM, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE- 678 015. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN CODE – 678 015. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.1601 OF 2011(A) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T In a building belonging to the Irrigation Department, which was given to the petitioner on lease, petitioner has been conducting a hotel. The lease period has expired and according to the respondents substantial amount is due from the petitioner towards lease arrears. It is stated that the Government have passed orders in July, 2010, for the renovation of the Malambuzha garden and for the purpose of which, eviction of the petitioner is necessary. It is stated that it was in those circumstances Ext.P5 notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to vacate in 3 days. 2. Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 mainly contended that eviction of the petitioner is possible only by taking recourse to the provisions of the Public Premises eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971 and that Ext.P5 notice does not satisfy the requirements of the said Act. Although, the Government Pleader made an attempt to justify the steps taken by the respondents, fact remains that Ext.P5 notice does not satisfy the requirement WPC.No. 1601 /2011 :2 : of the Act mentioned above. 3. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the respondents to initiate proceedings under the said Act for the eviction of the petitioner and that until then the possession of the petitioner will not be disturbed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/