Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 10026 OF 2020 PETITIONERS: 1 CHACKO MATHAI AGED 68 YEARS S/O. CHACKO, PADINJARE KALAYIL, KADUTHURUTHI VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 2 MOLIKUTTY W/O. CHACKO MATHAI, PADINJARE KALAYIL, KADUTHURUTHI VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 001. 3 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 001. 4 THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR, KADUTHURUTHI P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 604. 5 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BUILDINGS DIVISION, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 002. 6 THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 7 THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNEMNT OF KERALA, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY ADV SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10026 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2021
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are husband and wife. They are in absolute possession and ownership of 8.09 Ares of property comprised in Survey No.995/5/2 of Kaduthuruthi Village. In the said property, the petitioners constructed a building and the local authority issued numbers as KPX/812, 812-D, F, G H, I, J, K, M, N, O and P to the building. According to the petitioners, office of the 4th respondent enquired about a suitable building for
functioning of their office in 2017. Accordingly, the petitioners offered their building and executed a consent deed on 03.07.2017, permitting the 4th respondent to function temporarily in the building owned by the petitioners. Based on the said consent deed, the 4 th respondent Sub Registrar inspected the building owned by the petitioners and demanded the petitioners to construct additional facilities in the said
building. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioners
invested Rs.5 lakhs more and effected additional constructions as directed by the 4th respondent and handed over the building to the 4th respondent on 16.10.2017 and the office of the 4 th respondent started to function there from that date onwards. It is the case of the petitioners that the monthly rent fixed was Rs.68,852/- after the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department inspected the building. It is stated in the writ petition that the Chief Engineer requested the 4th respondent to obtain sanction from the Government for the payment of rent. Ext.P1 is the order. In the building let out to the 4th respondent, the staff
strength of office of the 4th respondent is 9. Ext.P2 is the letter issued by the 4th respondent narrating the details of staff strength for the purpose of fixing rent. After issuance of Ext.P1, it is the case of the petitioners that they approached the 4th respondent for payment of rent. But, the 5 th respondent reduced and re-fixed the monthly rent of the building as Rs.47,962/- without even hearing the petitioner. Ext.P3 is the
order passed by the 5th respondent. It is the case of the
petitioners that Ext.P3 is an order passed without hearing the petitioners and it is a unilateral decision by the tenants of the petitioners to reduce the rent. But even that rent was not paid. Aggrieved by the non-payment of the monthly rent by the 4 th respondent, the petitioners submitted several representations before respondents 1 to 4. Even lawyer notice was issued. The petitioners approached the Taluk Legal Service Authority, Vaikom in this regard. It is further submitted that subsequently the 1st respondent issued Ext.P5 Government
Order by which the monthly rent is again re-fixed to
Rs.25,000/- with effect from 16.10.2017. It is the case of the petitioners that Exts.P3 and P5 are issued without giving opportunity to the petitioners. The counsel submitted that, Ext.P5 is an order passed by the Government unilaterally fixing the rent without even hearing the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and Ext. P5 and quash the same by writ of certiorari. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents No.1 to 4 to pay the monthly rent and its arrears with effect from 16-10-2017 as per Ext. P1 to the petitioner immediately. iii. Grant such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader.
3. Admittedly, the Sub Registrar Office of the respondents is functioning in a building owned by the
petitioners. It is admitted fact that the petitioners are the landlords and the respondents are the tenants. It is also an admitted fact that as per Ext.P1, the Chief Engineer fixed the rent as Rs.68,852/- and subsequently, as per Ext.P3, the 5 th respondent fixed the rent as Rs.47,962/-. It is further admitted by both parties that Ext.P5 is an order passed by the Government unilaterally reducing the rent from Rs.47,962/- to Rs.25,000/-. If the respondents are not agreeable for the rent suggested by the petitioners/landlords, they can very well vacate the premises and find out other appropriate building. They cannot unilaterally reduce the rent by issuing a Government Order even without hearing the petitioners. The Government Pleader takes me through the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent and submitted that, the rent is fixed based on certain guidelines. Whatever may be the guidelines, unilateral fixation of rent by the Government, even without the consent of the petitioners who are the landlord cannot be
accepted. According to me, Ext.P5 will not stand. Ext.P5 is to be set aside and the 1st respondent is free to hear the petitioners and take appropriate steps in accordance to law. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:
1. Ext.P5 order is set aside.
2. The respondents are free to consult the petitioners and take appropriate steps regarding fixation of rent, based on Exts.P1 and P3.
3. The decision as above should be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
4. The admitted arrears of rent should be paid to
the petitioners within one month from the date on which the decision as above is taken. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JV JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10026/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.CE/BL/KOTTAYAM/A1/RENT/8629/2017 DATED, 11.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.232/15, DATED 7.9.2017, ISSUED BY 4TH EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D5/1976/16, DATED 26.4.2019, ISSUED BY THE 5TH EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYERS NOTICE DATED 28.6.2018, ISSUED TO THE 4TH EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER, DATED 11.2.2020, ISSUED BY THE IST