ANTONY DOMINIC , J.
The Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C)No.31000/11 filed by the appellant challenging Exhibits P2 and P4. The appellant is occupying a room owned by the 1st respondent. By Exhibit P3, they were called upon to vacate the same. That demand was confirmed in Exhibit P4. It was these proceedings, which were challenged.
2. First contention raised was that Exhibits P2 and P5 are vitiated by mala fides. That contention was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge pointing out that the person against whom mala fides have been alleged, was not impleaded as a party in the Writ Petition. Second contention was that, on merits, Exhibits P2 and P5 are invalid. Referring to the documents in question, the learned Single Judge found that the reason for demanding surrender of the room was the additional requirement of space, felt by the 1st respondent. This reason, therefore, also cannot be stated W.A.No.1962/14 -2-
to be invalid. All these reasons were rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge and we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
3. The appeal is dismissed.
4. However at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, we direct that the if the appellant-Society have not already vacated from the room in question, they will be given four weeks' time to surrender vacant possession thereof.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, dsn JUDGE