Kerala High Court
Sakkariya vs Reliance Jio Infocom Limited on 29 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1945
AR NO. 169 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
SAKKARIYA
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. ALIKOYA, "ELUMBILAMANNIL", KARANTHOOR POST,
KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM AND KARANTHOOR DESOM, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673571
BY ADVS.
K.M.FIROZ
ABDUL VAHID(A-45)
RESPONDENT/S:
RELIANCE JIO INFOCOM LIMITED
REGIONAL OFFICE, SECOND FLOOR, CHANDRIKA CHAMBERS,
VYTTILA JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM - 682019 REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 682019
BY ADVS.
G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR)
AKHIL SURESH(K/000576/2016)
ANU BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR(K/936/2014)
THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AR NO. 169 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the owner of the property having 9.71 Ares in Block
No.42, Survey No.103/1A of Kunnamangalam Village, Kozhikode Taluk as
per the title deed No.254 of 1997 of Sub Registrar Office,
Chathamangalam.
2. Petitioner had entered into an agreement with respect to the
property admeasuring 1550 sq.ft on 6.11.2014 with respondent for the
purpose of installation, operation and maintenance of single or multiple
transmission tower/pole/mast for telecommunication 4G Broadband
Services and related equipments. Respondent is stated to have occupied
the premises at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per month with 15% enhancement
every three years. Respondent had paid the consideration / rent till 30 th
January 2016 and kept the same in arrears from there onwards.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that vide communication dated 23.7.2020, A2 respondent
terminated the lease agreement and demanded a sum of Rs.11,04,030/-
after tax deductions towards arrears of rent. Thereafter, on 27.11.2020,
respondent had caused a notice of termination without referring to
Annexure A2 notice stating that, the lease was terminated with effect
from 26.12.2020 Annexure A3. Clause 5(c) of the agreement provides
settlement of the dispute through arbitrator.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
AR NO. 169 OF 2022
respondent raised the objection qua limitation as contents of the letter
dated 23.7.2020 reveals that there were exchange of number of
correspondences whereby the petitioner was informed regarding having
not provided the free passage and uninterrupted usage of the property.
It is in that background termination was effected.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised
the paperbook.
6. The notice Annexure A3 would reveal that the termination is
effected with effect from 26.12.2020. Thus the period of limitation of
three years has not expired. Therefore the objection qua limitation does
not merit acceptance. Since there is a dispute and counter allegations, I
deem it appropriate to refer the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation
Centre of this Court and direct them to appoint an Arbitrator on the panel,
with the consent of the parties as and when the parties appear on
10.4.2023 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Sd/-
sab AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
AR NO. 169 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF AR 169/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF REGISTERED LEASE
AGREEMENT NO. 3778 OF 2014 DATED
06.11.2014 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE,
CHATHAMANGALAM
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE THROUGH LAWYER DATED
23.07.2020 ISSUED BY APPLICANT TO
RESPONDENT
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 27.11.2020
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO APPLICANT
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE THROUGH LAWYER DATED
25.09.2020 ISSUED BY APPLICANT TO
RESPONDENT
Annexure COPY OF DEMAND DRAFT
