K.C.Thimothios vs Greater Cochin Development Authority - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice p.v.kunhikrishnan friday, the 29th day of october 2021 / 7th karthika, 1943 wp(c) no. 28003 of 2011 petitioner: k.c.thimothios s/o.chummar, aged 60 years, proprietor, hillman automobiles,, gandhinagar, kadavanthra market road, kochi 682020 by advs. sri.c.k.pavithran sri.m.vivek respondent: greater cochin development authority represented by its secretary, greater cochin development authority,kdavanthra,, kochi 682 020. other present: sri.jimmy george, sc 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.28003 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- dated this the 29th day of october, 2021judgmentthis writ petition is filed with following prayers: i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to ext p1 to p8 and quash ext.p5, p7 & p8 and declare that demanding 30 months of rent towards security is illegal and arbitrary. ii. direct the respondent not to demand any further sum towards security in addition to rs.4500/- now available with the respondent towards security. iii. grant such other reliefs this hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including cost of this proceedings.2. the petitioner is a tenant of the respondent. the building was allotted to the petitioner as per ext.p1 in theyear 1998. it is the case of the petitioner that every three years, the petitioner executes rent deed, get it registered at the petitioner's expense and submits to the respondent. it is the case of the petitioners that security deposit of rs.4,500/- isalso with the respondent. subsequently, as per ext.p5, the rent was enhanced to rs.2,810/- instead of rs.1,500/-. the petitioner submitted ext.p6 representation against thisunilateral enhancement. thereafter ext.p7 was issued by the respondent in which the respondent directed the petitioner to pay the enhanced security deposit in bulk within ten days. ext.p8 is the resolution passed by the general council of the respondent by which the security deposit is enhanced. at this stage this writ petition was filed.3. heard the counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel for the respondent.4. the counsel for the petitioner reiterated thecontentions of the petitioner in this writ petition. the counsel submitted that the rent and the security deposit are enhanced unilaterally, even without notice to the petitioner and that also the enhancement is huge. on the other hand, the standing counsel submitted that the enhancement of rent is strictly in accordance with ext.p2 lease agreement and the security deposit is enhanced as per the decision in ext.p8.5. i considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondent. when this writ petition came up forconsideration on 02.03.2012, this court stayed the impugned orders in this writ petition and the interim order is even now continuing. the enhancement of rent and security deposit is the discretion of the respondent and this court cannot consider the validity of the same unless there is any statutory violation or there is any other arbitrariness on the part of therespondent. i don't want to make any further observation about the merit of the case. if the petitioner feels that the enhancement is unjustified, he can approach the respondent with a representation narrating his grievance. the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is conducting a small workshop and he is not in a position to pay huge rent and security amount. the petitioner can highlight these aspects before the respondent and the respondent can consider the same in accordance to law. therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner:1. the petitioner is free to file a representation before the respondent narrating his grievance about the enhancement of rent and security deposit, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.2. if such a representation is received, the respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance to law.3. till final orders are passed in therepresentation, the interim order staying exts.p5 and p7 will continue. sd/- p.v.kunhikrishnan jv judge appendix of wp(c) 28003/2011 petitioner exhibits exhibit p1 copy of the allotment order dated 20.1.98 exhibit p2 copy of the registered lease agreement dated 23.12.2004 exhibit p3 copy of the account statement showing remittance of rent from 27.7.98 to 10.3.2011 exhibit p4 copy of the cash receipt dated 7.10.2011exhibit p5 copy of the letter dated 29.8.2011 exhibit p6 copy of the letter dated 16.9.2011 exhibit p7 copy of the letter dated 22.09.2011 exhibit p8 copy of the resolution dated 3.8.2010

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. 28003 OF 2011 PETITIONER: K.C.THIMOTHIOS S/O.CHUMMAR, AGED 60 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, HILLMAN AUTOMOBILES,, GANDHINAGAR, KADAVANTHRA MARKET ROAD, KOCHI 682020 BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN SRI.M.VIVEK RESPONDENT: GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KDAVANTHRA,, KOCHI 682 020. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JIMMY GEORGE, SC 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.28003 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2021

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers: i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext P1 to P8 and quash Ext.P5, P7 & P8 and declare that demanding 30 months of rent towards security is illegal and arbitrary. ii. Direct the respondent not to demand any further sum towards security in addition to Rs.4500/- now available with the respondent towards security. iii. Grant such other reliefs this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including cost of this proceedings.

2. The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent. The building was allotted to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 in the

year 1998. It is the case of the petitioner that every three years, the petitioner executes rent deed, get it registered at the petitioner's expense and submits to the respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that security deposit of Rs.4,500/- is

also with the respondent.     Subsequently, as per Ext.P5, the
rent was enhanced to Rs.2,810/- instead of Rs.1,500/-.            The
petitioner    submitted   Ext.P6       representation   against   this

unilateral enhancement. Thereafter Ext.P7 was issued by the respondent in which the respondent directed the petitioner to pay the enhanced security deposit in bulk within ten days. Ext.P8 is the resolution passed by the General Council of the respondent by which the security deposit is enhanced. At this stage this writ petition was filed.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondent.

4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

contentions of the petitioner in this writ petition. The counsel submitted that the rent and the security deposit are enhanced unilaterally, even without notice to the petitioner and that also the enhancement is huge. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel submitted that the enhancement of rent is strictly in accordance with Ext.P2 lease agreement and the security deposit is enhanced as per the decision in Ext.P8.

5. I considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondent. When this writ petition came up for

consideration on 02.03.2012, this Court stayed the impugned orders in this writ petition and the interim order is even now continuing. The enhancement of rent and security deposit is the discretion of the respondent and this Court cannot consider the validity of the same unless there is any statutory violation or there is any other arbitrariness on the part of the

respondent. I don't want to make any further observation about the merit of the case. If the petitioner feels that the enhancement is unjustified, he can approach the respondent with a representation narrating his grievance. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is conducting a small workshop and he is not in a position to pay huge rent and security amount. The petitioner can highlight these aspects before the respondent and the respondent can consider the same in accordance to law. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner:

1. The petitioner is free to file a representation before the respondent narrating his grievance about the enhancement of rent and security deposit, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. If such a representation is received, the respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance to law.

3. Till final orders are passed in the

representation, the interim order staying Exts.P5 and P7 will continue. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JV JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28003/2011 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT ORDER DATED 20.1.98 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE REGISTERED LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 23.12.2004 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT SHOWING REMITTANCE OF RENT FROM 27.7.98 TO 10.3.2011 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 7.10.2011

EXHIBIT P5        COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.8.2011
EXHIBIT P6        COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.9.2011
EXHIBIT P7        COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.09.2011
EXHIBIT P8        COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 3.8.2010