Dismissed

Radhakrishnan v. Parali Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC4 Oct 2010OP/16043/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of an original petition challenging orders for increased rent. The tenants sought quashing of orders and a declaration as deemed licensees. After a Lok Adalath settlement on the rent rate, the Court acquitted the impugned orders, upheld the settlement for future rent, and waived penal interest due to the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed. Petitioners to pay rent at 5% increase from April 2000 to April 2009. Penal interest waived.

Radhakrishnan Vs Parali Grama Panchayat — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

OP.No. 16043 of 2001(I)

¶6

---------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

----------------------

¶9

1. RADHAKRISHNAN, CHERAPADAM HOUSE, THIRUNELLAI P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶10

2. C.RAMANKUTTY, PULIKALPARAMBU, EDATHARA, PALAKKAD.

¶11

3. M.RAMANKUTTY NAIR, S/O. DEVAKIAMMA, MULLAKKARA HOUSE, PARLI, PALAKKAD.

¶12

4. B.SULAIMAN, S/O. BAPPU, RAUTHER TSS.V., FATHIMA MANZIL, PENGOTTUPALAYAM, PARLI, PALAKKAD.

¶13

5. K.P.KAMALAM, W/O. K.V.MANIKKAN, VELLAMPOTTA, KINAVALLU P.O., PARLI, PALAKKAD.

¶14

6. K.P.VELU, S/O. PATTU, PREETHALAYAM, MANAKKAMPADAM, KINAVELLUR P.O., PARLI, PALAKKAD.

¶15

7. P.SETHUMADHAVAN, INDIRA NIVAS, PENGATTUPALAYAM, PARLI, PALAKKAD.

¶16

8. P.V.MANI, S/O. VISWANATHAN ACHARI, PENGOTTUPALAYAM, PARLI, PALAKKAD.

¶17

9. V.U.MOHAMMED MUSTAFFA,S/O. V.M.UMMER, KIZHAKKEKARA, PARAMBU, PARLI, PALAKKAD.

¶18

10. SANJAY VISWANATHAN, S/O. KRISHNANUNNI, KALARIKKAKAM HOUSE, THENUR P.O.,PARLAI, PALAKKAD.

¶19

11. V.RAMAN W/O. CHENTHAMARAKSHAN,MELEVEEDU,

¶20

VIZHAPPULLAM, ODANUR,PARLI, P.O. PALAKKAD.

¶21

12. N.RAMACHANDRNA, NADAKKAVUPARAMBU, EDATHA P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶22

OP.16043/2001

¶23

13. PRADEEPKUMAR, KALATHIL HOUSE, MUTTIKULANGARA, PALAKKAD.

¶24

14. K.A.ABDUL JALEEL, BENGALAPRAMBU,MEEPARA, PALAKKAD.

¶25

15. ASHAMOL W/O. ANIL KUMAR,KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, KINAVALLUR, PARLI, PALAKKAD.

¶26

16. P.R.SACHIDHANANDAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, PALASSERI, PARLI P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶27

17. K.M.HANEEFA, S/O. MUTHUMOHAMMED, SALAMATH NAGAR, PALAKKAD.

¶28

18. V.S.DHAKSHAYANI, W/O. VELAYUDHAN, SASI NIVAS, ODANOUR ROAD,PARLI, PALAKKAD.

¶29

19. M.MADHAVAN NAIR, SREENILAYAM,PARLI, PALAKKAD .

¶30

20. SUSEELA, PENGOTTUPALAYAM,PARLI, PALAKKAD.

¶31

21. SATHIRATHNAM, NAMBALATH,MANAKAMPADAM, PARLI.

¶32

BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN

¶33

SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶34

RESPONDENT(S):

¶35

-------------------------

¶36

1. PARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PARLI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶37

2. SECRETARY, PARALI GRMA PANCHAYATH, PARALI P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶38

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD.

¶39

4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY TIS CHIEF SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM.

¶40

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SRI.A.V.RAVI. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.NANDAKUMAR

¶41

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

OP. 16043/2001

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶45

P1:- COPY OF THE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE 9TH PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.97 TO 31.3.98. DTD. NIL.

¶46

P2:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO.13967/C2/85/LAD DTD. 28.12.85.

¶47

P3:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 9TH PETITIONER DTD. 29.3.2000 BEARING NO.173/4/(R)/2000.

¶48

P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SIT RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITONER BEARING NO.173/4/R/2000 DTD. 11.4.2000.

¶49

P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.J1-4111/2000 DTD. 28.9.2000.

¶50

P6:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 29.11.2000 ISSUED TO THE 8TH PETITIONER FROM THE IST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.A3/4/R/2000.

¶51

P7:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH PETITIONER BEARING NO.A3/4/2000/R DTD. 18.12.2000.

¶52

P8:- COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.J1-67/2001 DTD. 5.1.2001.

¶53

P9:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMTITED BY SOME OF THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE IST RESPONDENT 1.3.2001.

¶54

P10:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 16.3.2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.A3/4/2000.

¶55

P11:- COPY OF THE MONEY ORDER COUPEN SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 17.4.2001.

¶56

P12:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.A3.4/2000 DTD. 21.4.2001 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITONER.

¶57

P13:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BEARING NO.A3.4/2000 DTD. 30.3.2001.

¶58

P14:- A CHART PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE DETAILS INCLUDING THE ORIGIN OF THE TENANCY, ORIGINAL RENT FIXED, DEPOST MADE, RENT PAID IN 2000-01 RATE PAYABLE FOR 2001-2002.

¶59

P15:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ADVOCATE P.VELAYUDHAN DTD. 6.4.2001 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶60

OP. NO.16043/2001

¶61

P16:- COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SRI.P.VELAYUDHAN ADVOCATE BEARING NO.A3.4/2000 DTD. 23.4.2001.

¶62

P17:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.A3.4/2000 DTD. 3.5.2001 TO THE 9TH PETITIONER.

¶63

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶64

R1(a):- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.4 DTD. 10.4.2000 BY THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE.

¶65

R1(b):- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 9.2.2001, NO.GLM 56-G/96 BY THE PANCHAYATH.

¶66

R1(c):- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.12030/B1/86/LAD DTD. 13.3.1987 BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

¶67

R1(d):- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B5-31305/2000 DTD. 25.1.2001 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DIRECTOR, TO THE SECRETARY, PARLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶72

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.16043 of 2001

¶73

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2010

¶74

J U D G M E N T

¶75

The petitioners are tenants of the 1^st respondent Panchayat in a shopping complex belonging to the 1^st respondent Panchayat. In respect of increase in the rent, Panchayat has issued orders demanding increased rent, which led to Exts.P10, P12, P13 & P17 orders. Petitioners are challenging those orders seeking the following reliefs:

¶76

A. Call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P13 and P15 to P17 from Respondents 1 and 2;

¶77

B. Quash Exts.P10, P12, P13 and P17 by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order;

¶78

C. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding Respondents 1 and 2 to accept the offer in Ext.P9 and allow the petitioners and other tenants to continue as lessees with liability to pay rent and deposit only at the rate offered in Ext.P9 from 1.4.2001 onwards;

¶79

D. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding Respondents 1 and 2 to refund the interest and penal interest adjusted from the deposits of the petitioners and intimated in Ext.P13 and similar notices;

¶80

E. Declare that petitioners 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 18 and 20 are deemed licencees as per Section 236 (3) of the Act;

¶81

O.P. No.16043 of 2001

¶82

-2-

¶83

Since this court felt that there were elements of settlement, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath and the Lok Adalath considered the matter. The Panchayat agreed for accepting the rent fixed @ 5% increase from the year 2000 April to 2009 April which was acceptable to the petitioners. But the parties could not agree on the question of payment of penal interest. Therefore the matter was again referred back to the court. It is pursuant to the same the matter comes up before me.

¶84

3. I have heard the parties.

¶85

In view of the agreement between the parties on the question of payment of rent, I am of opinion that, the writ petition can be disposed of in terms of that agreement. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. The Panchayth is directed to recover the rent from the petitioners fixed @ 5% increase from the year 2000 April to 2009 April as agreed by them before the Lok Adalat. In view of the peculiar nature of the dispute and the nonpayment was only because of the dispute, I am of opinion

¶86

O.P. No.16043 of 2001

¶87

-3-

¶88

that, the penal interest can be waived. Accordingly I direct the 1^st respondent Panchayat to waive the penal interest.

¶89

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶90

S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE

¶91

shg/

Radhakrishnan v. Parali Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishnan v. Parali Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lijoy Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer

Musthafa P. Vs the District Collector and Another

C.Ravindranath Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Sukumaran Vs K.S.E.B.

K.K.Pratapan Vs K.S.E.B.

State of Kerala Vs Upa Lok Ayuktha