[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Pankajakshan Nair vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 19 December, 2025
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2025:KER:97689
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
FRIDAY, THE 19 DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32853 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O GANGADHARAN NAIR,
P.R HOUSE, KOTTAKKAKOM,
CHAVARA, KOLLAM,
KERALA, PIN - 691583
BY ADVS.
KUM.GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN
SMT.ARCHANA B.
SHRI.AJIN K. KURIAKOSE
SHRI.VINAYAK SACHIN S.
SMT.SRUTHILAKSHMI SHAJI
RESPONDENTS:
1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS,
NANDANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
2 THE COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
NANDANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
2025:KER:97689
2
W.P(C). No.32853/2025
3 ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690518
BY ADV.
SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P)., SC, TDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 10.12.2025, THE COURT ON 19.12.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:97689
3
W.P(C). No.32853/2025
JUDGMENT
K. V. Jayakumar
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The petitioner, Sri. G. Pankajakshan Nair, states that he is a tenant
of one of the shop rooms of Padanayarkulangara Devaswom Shopping
Complex owned by the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board.
2. The petitioner states that he has been in occupation of shop
room No.5 in Block No.2 of the said complex at Karunagappally, Kollam,
wherein he is carrying on electrical business under the name and style
'P. R. Electricals'.
3. The tenancy commenced in the year 1994. At the time of
induction, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- with the Board as
security and agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.575/-. Further, it was
mutually agreed between the lessor and the lessee that the rent shall be
increased by 15% every three years. The petitioner states that the
Shopping Complex is in a deteriorated and dilapidated stage and suffers
from serious infrastructural deficiencies. He also asserts that it lacks
essential facilities such as proper parking space, sanitation and drinking
water.
4. According to the petitioner, the respondent Devaswom Board
unilaterally enhanced the rent of the shop rooms to ₹10,260/- per month
2025:KER:97689
without affording the petitioner any opportunity of being heard, and further
demanded a fresh security deposit of ₹2,00,000/-. The petitioner contends
that such sudden and exorbitant enhancement of rent is arbitrary,
unreasonable, and wholly disproportionate, particularly in view of the age
and dilapidated condition of the building and the lack of basic amenities
therein.
5. The Board further declared that the existing rent would no
longer be accepted from November 2020 onwards, thereby coercing the
tenants to succumb to the arbitrary demand. While so, the petitioner and
the other tenants approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.23494/2020.
This Court, as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 07.10.2022, categorically held
that the enhancement of rent by the Board must be undertaken only after
granting the affected tenants an opportunity of being heard and upon due
consideration of prevailing market standards.
6. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the petitioner
submitted Ext.P2 representation before the 2nd respondent Devaswom
Commissioner, on 10.12.2022. Despite the binding judgment and Ext.P2
representation, the Board has persisted in its arbitrary stand and violated
the judgment of this Court.
7. On 03.02.2025, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner,
Karunagappally issued Ext.P3 demand notice calling upon the petitioner to
pay the arrears of rent at the enhanced rate of rent. The petitioner contends
that the demand contained in Ext.P3 is baseless, arbitrary and would
2025:KER:97689
amount to unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4
representation on 24.03.2025, pointing out the illegality of Ext.P3 demand
notice. The petitioner asserts that he had remitted the agreed rent without
any default, in order to substantiate the said contention, he produced
Ext.P5 series rent receipts.
8. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has approached
this Court seeking the following reliefs:
i. To issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing Exhibit P3 demand notice issued
by the respondent Devaswom Board through its Assistant
Commissioner devaswom, Karunagappally as it is arbitrary
and illegal;
ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the respondents to revise the
rent upon due consideration of prevailing market standards
and to undertake any revision of rent only after affording
the petitioners an opportunity of hearing;
iii.Issue a writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction restraining the respondent from initiating
any coercive proceedings, including eviction or steps under
the Revenue Recovery Act, for realization of the alleged
arrears of rent pursuant to Exhibit P3;
iv. Declare that the petitioners are not liable to pay any arrears
of rent as alleged in Exhibit P3, except in accordance with a
rent revision lawfully effected in terms of Exhibit P1
judgment.
2025:KER:97689
9. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a counter affidavit as directed by
this Court. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Travancore
Devaswom Board pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.2275/2021, issued a direction to the Executive Engineer to
revise the rent of the buildings, shopping complexes under the ownership
of the Board. In the above Writ Petition, this Court further directed that the
revised rent must not be lower than the prevailing market rate of rent in the
locality. The Devaswom Commissioner issued an entrustment letter to the
Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Karunagappally to re-fix the rate as
per the market rate. By Ext. R1(a) letter dated 12.08.2024 in ROC
7749/24/M1. Further directions were also issued by the Board to the
Assistant Commissioner to fix the rent as per the market rate.
10. The Board approved the revised rate of rent with reference to
the report of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner vide Ext.R1(b) dated
02.08.2024. As per the revised rate, the petitioner is liable to pay
Rs.6,49,000/-. The hike made in the rent by the Board is in compliance
with the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2275/2021.
11. On 29.02.2025, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner had
issued legal notices to the defaulters, including the petitioner, intimating
about the arrears of rent to be paid. Further, it is stated that on 28.03.2025,
the petitioner submitted a representation before the Assistant Devaswom
Commissioner, Karunagappally. Ext.P3 notice was issued based on the
newly revised rate of rent, fixed in accordance with the prevailing market
2025:KER:97689
rate.
12. It is further contended that there is no compulsion for the
petitioner to continue his business in the shopping complex, if he would
suffer business loss on account of hike in the rent amount.
13. We have heard the submissions of Smt. Gayathri
Muraleedharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. G.
Santhosh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore
Devaswom Board.
14. The contention advanced by Smt. Gayathri Muraleedharan is
that the unilateral enhancement of rent by the Board is illegal, unjustifiable
and arbitrary. No opportunity was granted to the petitioner before
enhancing the rate of rent, despite a specific direction from this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 23494/2020.
15. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for
Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the rate of rent was enhanced
pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2275/2021.
In the said judgment, directions were issued by this Court to re-fix the rate
of rent as per the market rate within a period of two months. In that
judgment, it was made clear that, while fixing the rate of rent, the
Commissioner shall ensure that the rent fixed must not be lower than the
prevailing market rate of rent in the locality.
2025:KER:97689
16. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. This Court,
vide Ext.P1 judgment, had issued directions to the Devaswom
Commissioner to re-fix the rent after affording the tenants an opportunity
of being heard within two months from the date of receipt of the certified
copy of the judgment. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:
"28. The issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the
law laid down by this Court in T. Krishna Kumar v. Cochin
Devaswom Board [2022 (4) KLT 798], which is reiterated
in H.N.Vijayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board
[2022/KER/50584]. In view of the law laid down in the said
decisions, the challenge made in this writ petition against
Exts.P3 and P3(a) to P3(k) notices issued by the 3rd
respondent Assistant Commissioner cannot be sustained. The
Travancore Devaswom Board has to ensure that proper rental
income/licence fee is generated from the shop rooms in the
shopping complexes owned by the respective Devaswoms
under its management, which shall not be lower than the
prevailing market rent in the locality.
29. Therefore, the 2nd respondent Devaswom
Commissioner shall refix the market rent/licence fee of the
respective shop rooms with individual notice to the
petitioners, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording
them an opportunity of being heard. It would be open to the
petitioners to submit written submission before the
Devaswom Commissioner, raising appropriate contentions.
The decision taken by the Devaswom Commissioner shall be
2025:KER:97689
strictly in terms of the law laid down by this Court in the
decisions referred to supra. While refixing the monthly rent
or licence fee of the shop rooms, the Devaswom
Commissioner shall ensure that the rate of the monthly rent
or licence fee is not lower than the prevailing market rent in
the locality. Any decision taken by the Devaswom
Commissioner shall be subject to approval by the Travancore
Devaswom Board, which shall be obtained within a further
period of one month. While granting such approval, the
Board shall ensure that the monthly rent/licence fee of the
respective shop rooms so fixed is not lower than the
prevailing market rent in the locality."
17. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, the petitioner has submitted
Ext.P2 representation before the Devaswom Commissioner on 10.12.2022,
highlighting the dilapidated condition of the building and expressing his
willingness to enhance the rent at the rate of 10% per annum.
18. Thereafter, the Board had issued Ext.P3 demand notice dated
03.02.2025 claiming the arrears of rent. Despite a specific direction in
Ext.P1 judgment dated 07.10.2022 to re-fix the rent of the petitioner and
other tenants, the Board did not take any steps to issue notice to the
petitioner and to afford an opportunity of hearing. After the lapse of two
years, the Board issued Ext.P3 demand notice under Section 71 of the
Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, claiming the arrears of rent at the
enhanced rate.
2025:KER:97689
19. On a careful consideration of the materials placed on record
and the submissions made in the Court, it is discernible that no opportunity
was afforded to the petitioner for a hearing pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment,
before fixing the revised rate of rent. Therefore, we are of the view that the
re-fixation of the rate of rent without complying with the principles of
natural justice is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust. Therefore, we deem it
appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent, Devaswom Commissioner, to
afford an opportunity to the petitioner for a hearing with regard to the
re-fixation of rent and to pass appropriate orders within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ext.P3 demand
notice issued by the Board and all further proceedings taken by the TDB
are hereby quashed.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
Sbna/BR
2025:KER:97689
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 32853 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT
DATED 07.10.2022 FILING W.P.(C) NO.
23494 OF 2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
10.12.2022 BEFORE THE DEVASWOM
COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID DEMAND NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DEVASWOM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, DATED
03.02.2025
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID
REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEVASWOM,
KARUNAGAPPALLY BY THE PETITIONER DATED
24.03.2025
Exhibit P5 THE RECEIPTS OF PAYMENTS OF RENT BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT TRAVANCORE
DEVASWOM BOARD DATES RANGING FROM
05-10-1994 TO 27-06-2025
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED
02.02.1995 ALONG WITH THE TYPED COPY
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN DBA NO:
95/2006 DATED 22.11.2006
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
BOARD DATED 08.07.2020
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED
20.05.2022 IN WP(C) 23494/2020
2025:KER:97689
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit-R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
12/08/2024 IN ROC 7749/24/M1 ISSUED TO
THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.
Exhibit-R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/08/2024
IN ROC 3939/20/M OF THE BOARD.
