K.C.Thimothios vs Greater Cochin Development ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 21441 Ker

            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:
 W.P.(C).No.28003/2011

                                   2




                    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 W.P.(C).No.28003/2011

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 W.P.(C).No.28003/2011

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 W.P.(C).No.28003/2011

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
 W.P.(C).No.28003/2011





                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