A.M. Hameedkutty vs. Sreekandapuram Municipality
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS THUR AY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1942 WP(C).No.11984 OF 2020(W) PETITIONER: A.M. HAMEEDKUTTY AGED 55 YEARS S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, ROOM NO.SP XVIII/1357, BUSSTAND SHOPPING COMPLEX, SREEKANDAPURAM.P.O, KANNUR- 670631 BY ADV. SHRI.MANAS P HAMEED RESPONDENTS: 1 SREEKANDAPURAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SREEKANDAPURAM.P.O, KANNUR-670631 2 THE SECRETARY SREEKANDAPURAM MUNICIPALITY, SREEKANDAPURAM.P.O, KANNUR-670631 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.11984/2020(W) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ======================= W.P.(C). No. 11984 of 2020 ======================= Dated this the 18th day of June, 2020 J U D G M E N T The case set up in the above Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:- That the petitioner challenges Exhibit P3 notice issued by the 1st respondent Municipality Imposing 50% of increase in the monthly rent and fixing additional security deposit of 50 times of increased monthly rent for renewing lease deed of the shopping complex room owned by the respondent Municipality. The petitioner further challenges the condition in Exhibit P3 that the agreement validity is for one year instead of three year as in earlier agreements. The monthly rent is increased from Rs.1522/- to Rs.2283/- and the petitioner has to pay 50 times of the said increased monthly rent ie., Rs.1,14,150/- for lease period of just one year. The main contentions urged by the petitioner are as follows: A) 50 % increase in the monthly rent and fixing additional deposit equivalent to 50 times of the increased monthly rent, so as to renew the lease deed for just twelve months period is unjust. B) the said tenancy agreement is being periodically renewed in
WP(C).No.11984/2020(W) 3 every 3 years with 15% increase in monthly rent without any additional deposit. C) An amount of Rs.50,000/- was already deposited by the petitioner at the time of commencement of the tenancy agreement. D) The commercial shopping complex mentioned in Exhibit P3 is not an RC building. Further the room is only below 50 sqft. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the afore captioned writ petition (civil) with the following prayers; I) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P3 notice and quash the same. II) To declare that increasing of 50% of monthly rent with fixing additional security deposit of 50 times of increased rent for one year validity, is exorbitant and hence illegal and unsustainable. III) To issue writ of mandamus or order or direction or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to renew Exhibit P1 lease deed without insisting the conditions mentioned in Exhibit P3. IV) Such other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Heard Sri. Manas P. Hameed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the nature of the orders, that is proposed to be passed in this petition notice to the respondents (Sreekandapuram Municipality) will stand dispensed with.
WP(C).No.11984/2020(W) 4
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned decision referred to in Ext.P3 letter dated 03.03.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent Secretary of the Sreekandapuram Municipality. Ext.P3 letter dated 03.03.2020 reads as follows: "വവിഷയയ: ശശകണണപരയ നഗരസഭ ബസസ സണനസ ഷഷണപവിയഗസ – ഷകണപ്ലകസ വണടക എഗവിമമെനസ പതുക്കുന്നതുയ വര്ദവിപവിച്ച വണടക ഒടുക്കുന്നതുയ -സയബനവിച്ചസ. സൂചന: 29.11.2019 തശയ്യതവിയവിമലെ നഗരസഭണ കകൗണ്സവിലെവിമന 1-)ംയ നയമ്പര് തശരുമെണനയ. നഗരസഭയുമട ഉടമെസ്ഥതയവിലുള്ള ഷഷണപവിയഗസ ഷകണപ്ലകവിമലെ വണടക മുറവിയുമട എഗവിമമെനസ കണലെണവധവി 31.03.2020 നസ അവസണനവിക്കുകയണണസ. ആയതവിനണല് സൂചന പ്രകണരയ കകൗണ്സവില് തശരുമെണനതവിമന അടവിസ്ഥണനതവില് മുറവിയുമട വണടക 50% അധവികരവിച്ചസ ഈടണകവിമകണണയ, അധവികരവിച്ച വണടകയുമട 50% ഇരടവി ഡഷപണസവിറസ ഇനതവില് ഈടണകവി മകണണസ ഒരു വര്ഷമത എഗവിമമെനസ പതുകവി നല്കുന്നതവിനസ തശരുമെണനവിച്ചവിട്ടുണസ. നവിലെവവില് നഗരസഭയുമെണയവി എഗവിമമെനസ ഉള്ള വവ്യകവികസ മെണത്രഷമെ എഗവിമമെനസ പതുകവി നല്കുകയുള. വണര്ഷവിക വണടകയുമട 5% തുകയുമട
മുദ്രപത്രയ
സഹവിതയ
അഷപക്ഷകന്
ഷനരവിടസ ഹണജരണഷകണതണമണന്നസ അറവിയവിക്കുന. നഗരസഭയവില് ഷലെലെ സമെയതസ ഡഷപണസവിറസ ഒടുകവിയവിട്ടുമണങവില് തകതണയ ഷരഖകള് ഹണജരണകവിയണല് ഡഷപണസവിറവിമന തുകയുമട ബണകവി സയഖവ്യ ഒടുകവിയണല് മെതവിയണകുയ. എഗവിമമെനസ കണലെണവധവി 01.04.2020 മുതല് 31.03.2021 വമരയണണസ. ഷമെല് പ്രകണരമുള്ള ഡഷപണസവിറസ തുകയുയ എഗവിമമെനവിമന 15.03.2020 നസ മുമ്പണയവി നഗരസഭയവില് ഹണജരണകണത പക്ഷയ തണങള്കസ ഷമെല് പ്രകണരമുള്ള മുറവി തുടരുന്നതവിനസ തണല്പരവ്യമെവില്ല എന്ന അനുമെണനതവില് പനര്ഷലെലെയ മചയ്യുന്നതണണസ എന്ന വവിവരയ അറവിയവിക്കുന. മുന് വണടക വര്ദവിപവിച്ച വണടക നഗരസഭയവില് ഡഷപണസവിറസ ഒടുഷകണ തുക 1522 2283 1,14,150 GST 411 Flood Cess 23 ആമക 2717 ആമക ഒടുഷകണ തുക.”
WP(C).No.11984/2020(W) 5
According to the petitioner the existing rent that is payable by the petitioner is @ Rs.1,522/month and that the petitioner has cleared all the arrears up to 31.03.2020. That now asper impugned Ext.P3 order dated 03.03.2020, the petitioner has been directed to pay rent amount which comes to Rs.2,717/month and also security deposit of Rs.1,14,150/-(Rupees One lakh fourteen thousand one hundred and fifty only), which according to the petitioner is about fifty times the monthly rent, even though the tenure of the allotment is only for a period of 12 months. It is urged that the enhancement of the rent from Rs.1,522/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred and twenty two only) to 2,717/-(Rupees Two thousand seven hundred and seventeen only) is unreasonable and disproportionate and further that, to demand the security deposit at the rate of fifty times the monthly rent, when the period of renewal is shown as only one year (12 months) in Ext.P3, is highly disproportionate and arbitrarily unreasonable. It appears that the petitioner has now submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 12.06.2020 before the respondent Sreekandapuram Municipal authorities for redressel of his grievances.
Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the following directions are issued: (i) The 2nd respondent Secretary of the Sreekandapuram Municipality will immediately take up the matters raised by the
WP(C).No.11984/2020(W) 6 petitioner in Ext.P4 representation on 12.06.2020 and shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through authorised representatives/counsel if any and thereafter should prepare and forward the hearing notes in the matter to the Municipal Council of the 1st respondent Sreekandapuram Municipality. This process shall be completed by the 2nd respondent Secretary of the Municipality within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. (ii) Thereafter, the Municipal Council of the 1st respondent Sreekandapuram Municipality will take up the matters in Ext.P4 representation and will take a considered decision in the matter taking due note of the above said contentions of the petitioner that the increase in the monthly rent and the increase of the yearly deposit amount is highly disproportionate and unreasonable etc., and then may take a considered decision in the matter without much delay preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the hearing notes in the matter from the 2nd respondent Secretary of the Sreekandapuram Municipality as afore directed. (iii) In case the petitioner pays provisional monthly rent @ Rs.1,800/month for the period from 01.04.2020, then further coercive steps in pursuance to Ext.P3 order dated 03.03.2020 shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken by the Municipal Council of the 1 st respondent Municipality on the matters in Ext.P4 representation as
WP(C).No.11984/2020(W) 7 afore directed. It is made clear that the above said direction issued by this Court is only an interim arrangement and it is only for the purpose of preservation of subject matter of the lis and shall not be construed as an expression on the part of this Court regarding the merits of the controversies which have to be considered by the respondent Municipal authorities. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of the judgment along with a copy of the memorandum in W.P.(C) with all the exhibits before the 2nd respondent Secretary of the Municipality for necessary information and for further action. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE DM
WP(C).No.11984/2020(W) 8 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY FOR THE PERIOD OF 01.04.2017 TO 31.03.2020 EXHIBIT P2OF THE RESOLUTION NUMBERED 36/17 DATED 28.02.2017 OF SREEKANDAPURAM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL EXHIBIT P3OF NOTICE RECEIVED ON 12.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY WITH DATED 03.03.2020 EXHIBIT P4OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12.06.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //// PA TO JUDGE
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.