High Court of KeralaWP(C)/25916/2014dismissed as infructuous

V. Amudini v. Corporation Of Thiruvananthapuram

2015-04-08Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/18TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 25916 of 2014 (L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER : - ---------------------- V. AMUDINI, AGED 56, D/O.VASUMATHI, KALPAKASSERY VEEDU, \ PROPRIETOR, DEVI FAST FOOD, T.C 30/812, PUHEN ROAD, PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISSH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENTS : - ---------------------------

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED ADDL. R2. B. LEELA, D/O.BHANUMATHY, BHANU COTTAGE, T.C.30/811, PETTA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 24.

(ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.10.2014 IN IA 13915/14). R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION R2 BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-04-2015, ALONG WITH WPC. 12509/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

DMR/-

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

--------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 25916 of 2014 & W.P. (C) No. 12509 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 08th day of April, 2015

JUDGMENT

Both the writ petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous. At any rate, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that owing to the expiry of tenancy as well as the trade licence, the respondent Corporation is said to have locked out the building.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to the respondent Corporation to permit the petitioner to take out her belongings so that the vacant possession could be handed over to the landlord.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Corporation has submitted that insofar as taking out of the belonging is concerned, the Corporation may not have any substantial objection.

W.P.(c) Nos. 25916/14 & 12509/13

4. The learned counsel for the landlord has specifically contended that possession be delivered to the landlord alone, for which the learned counsel for the petitioner does not express any objection.

In the facts and circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondent Corporation to permit the petitioner to take out her belongings from the demised premises; whereafter the landlord is at liberty to take possession of the property.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-