Shaji P.Chaly, J. - This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P3 order dated 12.10.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Secretary of the Taliparamba Municipality, directing the 3rd respondent to demolish the illegal construction carried out in the building belonging to the 3rd respondent in which the petitioner is a tenant, failing which, action will be taken under Sec.406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and Rule 18 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. The said order is passed after providing an opportunity of hearing to the 3rd respondent landlord as well as the 4th respondent, tenant. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. The 3rd respondent is the owner of a building bearing No.TMC XIII-589-A2, which is let out to the petitioner by executing an agreement dated 06.06.2012, and the petitioner is running a dance school by name, Nrithanjali in the said building. According to the petitioner, 3rd respondent is taking steps to evict the petitioner without resorting to the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and disturb the peaceful possession of the room occupied by the petitioner. Thereupon, petitioner was forced to approach the Munsiffs Court, Taliparamba by filing O.S.No.327 of 2018 seeking to restrain respondents 3 and 4 and their men from demolishing the separate hollow-bricks wall and forcibly evicting the petitioner from the room occupied by the petitioner. The Munsiffs Court has granted Ext.P2(a) order dated 07.09.2018 in I.A.No.2398 of 2018, restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the room occupied by the petitioner and from committing any act of waste until further orders.

3. Ext.P3 order has been passed by the 2nd respondent dated 12.10.2018, directing to demolish the unauthorized construction within 24 hours, failing which, the Municipality would initiate steps to demolish the building. The case projected by the petitioner is that, though the petitioner is the occupier of the room, no notice has been issued to her before passing Ext.P3 order. It is also the case of the petitioner that, there is a concrete hollow-bricks partition wall to separate the rooms occupied by the petitioner and the room occupied by the 4th respondent. That apart, it is submitted that, if at all there is any unauthorized construction, the same can be regularized by submitting proper application before the 2 nd respondent.

4. The 4th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. According to the 4 th respondent, 4th respondent is running an "Akshaya Centre" in a portion of room bearing No.2400/XVII of Taliparamba Municipality. The 4th respondent was occupying the northern portion of the room and the southern portion of the room was occupied by a relative viz., Prabhakaran, who was running a business of household articles. Since it was a single room and the person occupying the southern portion of the room was related, a single Kaichit was executed in the name of the 4th respondent with respect to the entire room, though the rent was being paid separately to the respective portions occupied by the 4th respondent as well as the aforesaid Prabhakaran. On the southeastern portion of the room, there was a toilet attached to the room which was being used by all the occupants of the room.

5. In the year 2014, the said Prabhakaran stopped his business and vacated the portion of the room occupied by him. Thereafter, that portion of the room was put in possession of the writ petitioner by the 3rd respondent landlord. At that time, a temporary partition was made by the 3rd respondent to separate the portion of the room occupied by the 4th respondent and the writ petitioner. A door was provided on the plywood partition and a corridor was provided for facilitating access to the toilet to the 4th respondent and her employees.

6. On 27.03.2018, the 3rd respondent in collusion with the writ petitioner, tried to block access to the toilet by constructing a wall on the southern portion of the part of the room occupied by the 4th respondent. Immediately, 4th respondent filed an application before the Accommodation Controller, Taliparamba, evident from Ext.R4(a) and by an interim order dated 28.03.2018, the Accommodation Controller restrained further construction of the wall and ordered to maintain status quo, which is marked as Ext.R4(b). By a letter dated 04.06.2018, the 3rd respondent herein informed the Accommodation Controller that he is agreeable for the use of toilet by the 4th respondent and the employees and he will not obstruct the passage to the toilet, evident from Ext.R4(c). Thereafter, the Accommodation Controller has passed Ext.R4(d) order dated 23.06.2018, restraining the 3rd respondent from obstructing the toilet facility to the 4th respondent as well as the employees.

7. However, in violation of Ext.R4(d) order, the 3 rd respondent again in collusion with the writ petitioner, blocked access to the toilet by constructing a wall on the entire southern side of the portion of the room occupied by the 4th respondent on 07.09.2018, and on the same day the 4th respondent filed a petition before the Accommodation Controller, evident from Ext.R4(e). In accordance with the directions issued by the Accommodation Controller, the Village Officer, Taliparamba conducted a site inspection and filed a report dated 07.09.2018, affirming the contentions raised in Ext.R4(e) petition, evident from Ext.R4(f).

8. In the meantime, the writ petitioner filed a suit before the Munsiffs Court, Taliparamba as O.S.No.327 of 2018 and obtained Ext.P2(a) order, and in that circumstances, the Accommodation Controller has not passed any order on the petition filed by the 4th respondent. Ext.R4(g) is the commission report dated 19.09.2018 filed in the above suit, in which it is stated that the construction carried out blocking entry to the toilet is a new construction. Therefore, according to the 4th respondent, the attempt of the 3rd respondent is to some or other, block the facility enjoyed by the 4th respondent in collusion with the writ petitioner.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. Perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

10. From the fact discussion made above, it is clear that the petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality, directing the landlord i.e., the 3rd respondent to demolish the construction carried out using hollow-bricks, prohibiting entry of the 4th respondent to the toilet facility enjoyed by the 4th respondent and her employees. It is quite clear that Ext.P3 order was passed after providing opportunity of hearing to the 3 rd and 4th respondents. It is clear from Ext.P3 order that, 3 rd respondent is provided with sufficient opportunity to demolish the disputed structure, and on failure alone, action is threatened in accordance with Sec.406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, and Rule 18 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Therefore, one thing is clear, Ext.P3 order is not a final order passed, and if the petitioner was so aggrieved, petitioner ought to have, filed necessary objection to the same and sought for adjudication of the issue. Furthermore, the landlord of the building was heard before passing Ext.P3 order and the landlord has not challenged Ext.P3 at all.

11. In spite of acceptance of notice in this writ petition, landlord has also not cared to appear before this Court. Further, it is quite clear that, the entry to the toilet was blocked by the landlord and under that circumstances, the 4th respondent has approached the Accommodation Controller in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. On the basis of the undertaking given, an order was passed by the Accommodation Controller, restraining the landlord from obstructing access of the 4th respondent and her employees to the toilet facility enjoyed under the tenancy. Anyhow, after disposal of the petition, again obstruction is created and thereupon, 4th respondent has submitted Ext.R4(e) before the Accommodation Controller, seeking appropriate directions to the 3rd respondent landlord.

12. However, in the meanwhile, a suit was filed and an injunction order is obtained, which is under the consideration of the competent civil court. Anyhow, during the pendency of the same alone, the 4th respondent approached the Municipality against the illegal construction carried out by the 3rd respondent landlord. In that context, it is significant to note that the Municipality is not a party to the suit proceedings. It was under the complaint filed by the 4 th respondent, Ext.P3 order is passed. As I have pointed out earlier, the landlord has not challenged that order. It is also clear from the documents produced by the 4th respondent that the landlord has conceded that landlord will not obstruct the use of the toilet by the 4th respondent as well as her employees, before the Accommodation Controller, who is the competent authority to decide such issues under Act, 1965.

13. In my considered view, either petitioner has suppressed those material facts from the purview of this Court, or the petitioner is not aware of the orders passed by the Accommodation Controller. The said orders are binding on the landlord in view of the tenancy arrangement by and between the landlord and the 4 th respondent. Therefore, the writ petitioner, who is yet another tenant, cannot turn around and say that the order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality viz., Ext.P3 is illegal, on the ground no notice was served on the writ petitioner by the Municipality. It is quite clear and evident that the landlord has participated in the proceedings and thereafter only, Ext.P3 order is passed. So also from Ext.P3, it is explicit, there is no case for the landlord that the disputed construction is carried out after securing permit from the Secretary of the Municipality. Further, the Secretary has passed the impugned order after evaluating the pros and cons and taking into account the entire factual and legal issues projected by the parties. The Secretary is also duty bound to respect the order passed by the Accommodation Controller under law. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the interest of the tenant i.e., the writ petitioner was not protected by the landlord in the hearing proceedings.

14. Taking into account all these aspects, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner has not made out any case justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in Ext.P3 order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality. Resultantly, writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.