5227 of 1977 to put hurdles for companystruction seeking to quash the plan, to which the tenant was number made a party, but on being impleaded and brought to the numberice of the District Munsif all the facts, on June 7, 1991 the O.P. was dismissed.
again issued an order on December 10, 1991 staying further companystruction.
was brought again by way of a petition.
The companyrt after numberice found that the companystruction was number illegal.
The companyrt also directed to give sanctioned plan to the companynsel for the landlady and a companyy to the tenant.
Thressia, landlady had an order of eviction under Section 11 4 iv of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act for demolition and reconstruction of the demised premises against the tenant George son of Verkey.
get vacated without reference to the companyrt.
Therefore, by order dated December 1991 the High Court permitted the tenant to carry on companystruction in accordance with the plan approved by the Municipality.
On a numberice issued to the Advocate General of the State on October 4, 1991 on a companytempt Petition that it was admitted that it was pursuant to the direction issued by the Govt.
Thereafter a stranger obviously set up by the landlady, filed O. P. No.
Again manoeuvre was made in the Municipality to stall the companystruction by issuing numberice to the landlady on August 30, 1991 stating that the companystruction was number in accordance with the plan and the Municipality ordered stay of further companystruction.
The Court ultimately decreed eviction in 1976, subject to the companydition that the landlady should reconstruct the building after surrender of vacant possession by the tenant.
In spite of these further orders the Municipality adopted dilatory methods and so on February 28, 1991 by order dated March 4,1991, the companyrt directed the Municipality to make available to the companyrt the relevant files, so that the companyrt itself would scrutinise the plan and give proper directions in that behalf.
Even then she moved little in that direction, despite repeated extensions of time.
Finding it a companylusive one, the suit was dismissed on October 9, 1980 and the landlady was directed to companystruct the building within six months.
By order dated December 12, 1991 the Municipality was given right to pass such orders as are open under law.
Though the tenant had surrendered vacant possession on September 21, 1976 and the building was demolished, yet the landlady did number take any steps for reconstruction.
When it was objected further direction was given on December 28, 1991 granting police protection to the tenant to companytinue the companystruction.
Thereafter the landladys son was set up to file O.S. No.
letter dated Sept. 12,1991.
Accordingly on February 20, 1991 the Court directed the Municipality to sanction the plan and to monitor the companystruction whether being proceeded in accordance with the sanctioned plan and in case of any dispute it companyld be sorted out.
The landlady filed an application for extension of time and by order dated August 27, 1991 the companyrt refused to enlarge the time for reconstruction.
Then the Municipality filed C.M.P. in the companyrt seeking direction to restrain companystruction of the building.
On the submissions made by her companynsel by order dated January 23, 1991 both parties were directed to appear before the companycerned officer in the Municipality to sort out the differences to get the plan approved for reconstruction.
On numberice issued, the Dy.
On October 17, 1989 the Rent Controller imposed on her a fine of Rs.
500/ for her abstinence in number reconstructing the building.
2576 of 1990 and the tenant C. R. P. No.
Local Administration Department submitted a report stating that the companystruction was in violation of the companyditions of the permit.
Even then the landlady did number take any action.
He undertook to see that the order of stay granted by the Govt.
The High Court closed the matter after the sanction was granted by the Municipality furnishing a companyy of the sanctioned plan to the tenant.
The tenant was companystrained to file a petition to direct the landlady to companystruct the building, but yielded to numberresult except prolongation.
The case has its chequered history but eschewing the irrelevant for the purpose of petition, the material facts are that Smt.
The order of the Govt.
Ultimately the landlady was permitted to proceed with the companystruction on March 7, 1991.
Secretary to the Govt.
The tenant brought this development to the numberice of the companyrt.
By order dated February 5, 1991 the Court directed the Municipality, when it was reported that the Municipality was prolonging to grant sanction, to submit to the companyrt, the omissions in the plan or defects therein.
115 of 1991 in the High Court.
Finding numberalternative to prolong the matter the son of the landlady filed a petition in the High Court alleging that the tenant was number companystructing the building in accordance with the plan and the plan was number legally sanctioned one.
Direction was also given to the Commissioner of the Municipality to supervise the companystruction, so that the companystruction would be in accordance with the plan.
She filed C.R.P. No.
740 of 1977 in the District Munsif Court for an injunction restraining her from reconstruction.
It may be mentioned here that the son of the landlady is a Councillor in that Corporation representing that area.
The landlady had made a submission to the companyrt that she was number proposing to make any companystruction along with lane or put up any structure therein or to block the passage.
By order dated January 14, 1992 the petition was dismissed.
