Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

O.THAJUDHEEN, S/O.LATE OMMER versus M/S.IVY ASSOCIATES, A FIRM REPRESENTED

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


O.THAJUDHEEN, S/O.LATE OMMER v. M/S.IVY ASSOCIATES, A FIRM REPRESENTED - WP(C) No. 11736 of 2007(V) [2007] RD-KL 7151 (4 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 11736 of 2007(V)

1. O.THAJUDHEEN, S/O.LATE OMMER,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. M/S.IVY ASSOCIATES, A FIRM REPRESENTED
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY,

For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :04/04/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) No.11736 2007 V

Dated this the 4th day of April, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The case of the petitioner is that the status of the first respondent, in the building belonging to the petitioner, is only that of a trespasser. No tenancy agreement, much less any lease agreement has been executed between the petitioner and the first respondent. But, it is conceded that the first respondent, in anticipation of a lease agreement, has been permitted to do painting works.

2. Now, it is alleged that on the strength of the permission given by the petitioner to the first respondent to doing painting work of the building, the first respondent has applied for a licence to the second respondent and the grievance is that the 2nd respondent Municipality is about to issue licence to the first respondent.

3. I do not propose to go into the merits of the case. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 representation to the Municipality requesting that licence may not be issued to W.P.(C) No.11736 2007 the first respondent, since it is seen that the first respondent has applied for a licence. Shri.M.K.Chandra Mohandas, who is appearing for the second respondent, submits that the question issuance of licence to the first respondent will be decided only after hearing the petitioner also. Under these circumstances, the writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 2nd respondent Municipality to take a decision on the application for licence submitted by the first respondent, only after hearing the petitioner on Ext.P1 application submitted by him. The decision on the application for licence, as directed above, will be taken at the earliest, at any rate within one month from today. Sd/- (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE)

JUDGE

sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) No.11736 2007 V

JUDGMENT

4th April, 2007.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.