TRESA ANTONY Vs. THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The additional 3rd respondent appears and submits that she had transferred the room with permission of the GCDA to the petitioner in the year 2014 itself. The learned Counsel appearing for the GCDA submits that there is no permission granted. With respect to the other room, the additional 4th respondent also submits that the room was in the possession of the petitioner, but, however, there are some disputes between 4th respondent and the petitioner.

(2.) In any event, on the submission that a transfer has been effected, legally or illegally, the rooms were in the possession of the petitioner at the time of surrender. This Court had specifically noticed the dispute between the GCDA and the petitioner in the interim order, permitting the District Collector and the GCDA to take possession of the rooms. It was also observed that, subject to the proceedings for eviction, the possession will be resumed to the person from whom the rooms were taken over.

(3.) In the circumstance of the submissions of additional 3rd and 4th respondents, the keys shall be handed over to the petitioner. The learned Special Government Pleader hands over the keys to the petitioner's Counsel. The possession taken over by the petitioner would not be legal merely because it has been done on the orders of this Court. The GCDA would be entitled to proceed with the proceedings for eviction in accordance with law. This Court has not spoken on the legality of the possession of the petitioner.