Kerala High Court
T.K. Raju vs Kochi Municipal Corporation on 28 October, 2025
W.P.(C) No.21217 of 2020 1
2025:KER:80641
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 21217 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
T.K. RAJU,AGED 61 YEARS
ROOM NO.06, THOPPIL GARDEN SHOPPING COMPLEX,
JANATHA ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682019.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU CHERUKARA
SHRI.ARUN BABU
RESPONDENT:
KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
CORPORATION OFFICE, P.B.NO.1016,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.
BY ADV SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.21217 of 2020 2
2025:KER:80641
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P.(C) No.21217 of 2020
.................................................................
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P8 order
dated 04.12.2018.
2. Petitioner was originally running a small telephone
booth and a travel service office in building No.29/1154 owned by the
respondent Kochi Municipal Corporation, which was surrendered by the
owner of the building for the purpose of widening of Sahodharan
Ayyappan Road. Based on Ext.P1 request made by the Chairman of the
GCDA, Ext.P2 was issued by the respondent Corporation allowing the
petitioner to have a telephone booth established in the compound of
Thoppil Gardens owned by the Corporation at Rs.100/- per month being
the ground rent and at Rs.500/- being the deposit amount. Thereafter
Ext.P4 agreement was executed for a period of three years. There was
time to time hike in the ground rent and rent was fixed till 31.03.2017 as
Rs.217/- per month and the petitioner was paying the monthly ground rent.
While so Ext.P7 notice was issued intimating the petitioner that the rent
was increased to Rs.2,380/-. Petitioner objected to Ext.P7 and after
considering the objection raised Ext.P8 order was issued whereby the
2025:KER:80641
ground rent was reduced to Rs.1,500/-. Aggrieved by the same the
petitioner has preferred Ext.P9. Petitioner submits that the same has not
been considered and coercive steps are being taken by the respondent
Corporation to recover the amount due. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he is in still in possession of the premises covered by Exts.P1
and P3. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioner has approached
this Court.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent
Corporation, wherein it is stated that the Corporation used to fix the rent
based on the annual rental value and subsequently it was decided to fix
the rent based on the plinth area of the building with effect from
01.04.2017. Petitioner is allotted with a shop having almost 119 sq. m.
plinth area in Thoppil Garden Shopping Complex and originally the rent
was fixed as Rs.2,380/- with effect from 01.04.2017, which was objected to
by the petitioner. Then the matter was again considered by the Finance
Committee and the rent was reduced to Rs.1,500/- considering the fact
that the Corporation has allotted only land and the building was
constructed by the petitioner himself and a decision was taken only to
charge ground rent alone. The said decision of the Finance Committee
was approved by the Council of the respondent Corporation on
23.11.2018. Thereupon fresh demand notice was issued as Ext.P8.
4. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
2025:KER:80641
Admittedly the petitioner was allowed to occupy a space in the
property owned by the respondent Corporation and that the building was
constructed by the petitioner himself and taking note of the same the rent
was reduced to Rs.1,500/- treating it as ground rent against the original
proposal of Rs.2,380/- per month. Petitioner has not pointed out as to
whether the rent now fixed is excessive and not in accordance with law.
Taking into consideration the rival contentions of both sides, I am of the
view that Ext.P8 is not liable to be interfered with, but considering that the
petitioner is a petty trader, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition as
follows:
The respondent Corporation shall issue a fresh notice regarding
the entire arrears to be paid by the petitioner within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On receipt of the same,
the petitioner shall pay the arrears in 20 equal monthly instalments starting
from 1st of December, 2025. Petitioner shall also continue to pay the
ground rent as fixed by the respondent Municipal Corporation. On
payment of the monthly ground rent and on payment of the first instalment
towards arrears, the respondent Corporation shall renew the licence of the
petitioner if it is not already renewed. If the petitioner has any objection
regarding the actual extent of land in his possession, he may make an
appropriate request in this regard before the Corporation for a
measurement and if such a request is made, respondent Corporation shall
2025:KER:80641
take suitable measurement of the property with notice to the petitioner. If in
the measurement it was found that there is reduction in the area in the
possession of the petitioner, necessary reduction shall also be granted to
the petitioner in the matter of ground rent.
With the abovesaid directions the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
2025:KER:80641
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21217/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.10.1999
ISSUED BY THE G.C.D.A CHAIRMAN TO THE
MAYOR, KOCHI CORPORATION.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.12.1999
BY THE RESPONDENT'S OFFICE TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DATED
09.12.1999 ISSUED BY CORPORATION OF
COCHIN.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
17.12.1999 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S
TELEPHONE BOOTH AT ITS LEFT HAND SIDE
BEING THE 1ST AMONG THE SHOP.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.06.2003
ISSUED BY THE KOCHI CORPORATION TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.03.2018
ISSUED BY THE REVENUE OFFICER OF KOCHI
CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.12.2018
ISSUED BY THE REVENUE OFFICER OF KOCHI
CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 31.12.2018
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
DY.MAYOR, COCHIN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR RENT DATED
APRIL 2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER.
