Dismissed

M/S. Kerala State Construction Corporation v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 May 2012WP(C)/1736/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner-tenant filed a writ to claim dues and seek eviction relief against the respondent-landlord. The High Court dismissed the petition on its merits because the petitioner filed no affidavit in reply to the landlord's denial of the claim.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with a direction that the petitioner may agitate the dispute before the Government.

M/S. Kerala State Construction Corporation Vs State of… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2012/3RD JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 1736 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S. KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED, AGED 54 YEARS,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, AT 30/1521-A, BAY UNDER THE BRIDGE, NORTHERN SIDE OF RAILWAY, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA, COCHIN-682019.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,

¶11

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2. THRISSUR CORPORATION,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR.

¶14

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M. MOHAMMED SHAFI R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR ADV. SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS ADV. SRI.V.N.HARIDAS

¶15

SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

LSN

¶18

WP(C).No. 1736 of 2012 (N)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE MANAGER, THRISSUR RESPECT OF BALANC	STATEMENT CERTIFIED BY THE REGIONAL OF THE PETITIONER CORPORATION, IN E AMOUNT DUE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 10/7/1995.	MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE	LETTER NO.R.8/30940 DATED 25/8/1997.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE	RENT AGREEMENT DATED 1/10/1997.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE 30/9/2010.	LETTER NO.44463/DB2/10/LSGD DATED
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE 4/11/2011.	LETTER NO.RMT/RO/90-2000/672 DATED
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE 11/11/2010.	LETTER NO.CC/E1/1806 DATED
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE	LETTER DATED 23/12/2011.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE 22/12/2011.	LETTER NO.RMT/RO/90-2000/649 DATED
EXT.P10	TRUE COPY OF THE 12/12/2011.	LETTER NO.R3-2930/06 DATED
EXT.P11	TRUE COPY OF THE 6/1/2012.	DEMAND NOTICE NO.R8-2930/06 DATED

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

LSN

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.1736 of 2012

¶28

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2012

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioner is the tenant of a building owned by the second respondent. According to the petitioner, they executed certain works and more than Rs.21 lakhs is due to them. It is stated that while substantial amounts are due to them, the respondents are insisting on continued payment of rent and are threatening the petitioner with eviction. It is this allegation, the writ petition has been filed, mainly to avoid eviction and to direct payment of the amounts claimed.

¶31

An affidavit has been filed by the second respondent and in paragraphs 6 and 7, it is interalia stated thus:

¶32

6. It is respectfully submitted that contrary to the statements and averments stated in the WP, no amounts are due to the petitioner from the Corporation. In fact an amount of Rs.5,566/- is to be refunded by the petitioner to the Corporation. This fact has been reported by the Assistant Engineer, who was in charge at that point of time, in his report dated 12.11.2008.

¶33

7. It is respectfully submitted that an amount of Rs.10,93,047/- is legally due to the Corporation from the petitioner towards licence fee for the period

¶34

W.P.(C)No.1736 of 2012 2

¶35

from 7/1996 to 2/2012.

¶36

There is no affidavit in reply to this assertion. Therefore,

¶37

the claim of the petitioner that money is due them is denied by the respondents. In such a situation, petitioner cannot seek an order requiring the respondents to pay any amount as claimed by them nor can the petitioner avoid payment for rent or the consequences of its non-payment. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed.

¶38

Needless to say that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner in agitating the dispute before the Government.

¶39

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶40

M/S. Kerala State Construction Corporation v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kerala State Construction Corporation v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thankamma Kesavan Vs Rajkumar Singh

Shaji Poolath Vs R.Rajesh

Abdul Rasheed K.M. Vs Dr.S.Pradeepkumar

B.Balakrishnan Vs the Palakkad Municipality

C.a.Ibrahim Vs the Mangalpady Grama Panchayath

C.K.Sivadas Vs District Collector