Dismissed

C.H.Abdul Khader v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Aug 2014WP(C)/4910/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rent recovery proceedings by a Panchayath from 2001 to 2012. Court noted that a stay order did not absolve liability. It dismissed the writ petition, ordered payment in installments, and allowed revival of recovery proceedings on default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted five monthly instalments starting 12.09.2014; on default, recovery proceedings to be revived.

C.H.Abdul Khader Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/21ST SRAVANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 4910 of 2014 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

C.H.ABDUL KHADER, S/O.IBRAHIM HAJEE, GADIGUDDE ROAD, MULLERIA, KASARAGOD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶11

LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM.PIN-695 001

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, KARADKA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULLRIA P.O.,

¶13

KASARAGOD. PIN-671 121

¶14

3. TAHSILDAR, REVENE RECOVERY, KASARAGOD.PIN-671 121

¶15

R1 & R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.V.LONACHAN R2 BY SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

WP(C).No. 4910 of 2014 (K)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PANCHAYATH DATED 4/11/2000.
EXT.P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT THE PANCHAYATH DATED 4/7/2001.
EXT.P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND PAID BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25/9/2006.
EXT.P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE PAY ORDER DATED 27/9/2001.
EXT.P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 14/8/2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/2/2014 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT.R2(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5/3/2004 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R2(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/11/2004 ISSUED BY PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R2(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2/7/2008 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R2(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER ON 26/03/2009
EXT.R2(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF RENT FROM 4/2001 TO 2/2009
EXT.R2(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER ON 11/7/2011.
EXT.R2(G)	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 15/7/11
EXT.R2(H)	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER ON 16/4/2012

2/-

sts

-2-

WP(C).NO.4910/2014

¶28

EXT.R2(I) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DETAILS OF THE RENT.

¶29

EXT.R2(J) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN AND THE PANCHAYATH DATED 5/12/1998

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶34

=====================

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 4910 of 2014-K ====================== Dated this the 12^th day of August, 2014

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand raised as

¶38

per Ext.P5. The demand is said to be raised by the 2^nd respondent for recovery for the urged dues from the petitioner, who was occupied the premises of the 2^nd respondent Panchayath. The demand raised now is with respect to the rent due between 01.04.2001 and 01.04.2012, as also the interest and penal interest, which was accrued on such defaulted amounts. Admittedly, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent Panchayath, and had been paying rent to the respondent Panchayath. Even with respect to arrears committed at an earlier point of time as is evidenced by Ext.P3 receipt, the petitioner had settled the same after paying interest and penal interest as demanded by the respondent Panchayath.

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 4910 of 2014-K

¶40

¶41

In the year 2001, there was a proceedings initiated by the respondent Panchayath to evict the petitioner for the purpose of handing over the premises to the Traffic Police. However, the petitioner challenged the eviction and by Ext.P2 proceedings, the Government stayed such eviction. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayath that, the proceedings initiated before the Government has concluded with an order directing the Traffic Police to acquire some other premises. The petitioner hence has been continued in such premises. The petitioner on a stay order being issued is on an interest that no rent paid to the respondent Panchayath and has been continuing without paying any rent from 2001 onwards. It is only in such circumstance that, the respondent Panchayath initiated proceedings against the petitioner.

¶42

The petitioner before this Court contends that in fact, a representation has been given to the Panchayath

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 4910 of 2014-K

¶44

¶45

seeking waiver of interest and penal interest. The respondent Panchayath counter the same has produced the agreement at Ext.R2(j), which specifically speaks of how the recovery has to be proceeded with on default having been committed. In such circumstance, there would be absolutely no purpose in considering a representation since the petitioner is bound by the conditions of the agreement. It was also no compelling circumstances to be put forth by the petitioner, to extent the default in payment of rent except pointing to Ext.P2 a stay order issued, which definitely does not absolve the petitioner from the liability to pay the rent. Considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the recovery proceedings.

¶46

The petitioner on approaching the 3^rd respondent shall be granted five monthly instalments starting from 12.09.2014 and followed up on the 12^th of each succeeding month. On instalments being paid as directed herein above,

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 4910 of 2014-K

¶48

¶49

the 2^nd respondent Panchayath shall issue a demand with respect to the future interest, which shall also be complied with by the petitioner, as the 6^th instalment. On a single default being committed, the recovery against the petitioner shall be revived and proceeded against. It is also made clear that, the subject matter of the above Writ Petition is only with respect to the rent arrears as on 01.04.2012 and the 2^nd respondent Panchayath would be entitled to proceed with the recovery of the future interest as agreed upon by the parties.

¶50

With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶51

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶52

C.H.Abdul Khader v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.H.Abdul Khader 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

P.Suresh Kumar Vs New Indian Express Exployees Association(Kerala)

Sayid Mohammed Vs Deputy Tahsildar

Thomas Varkey and Others Vs Deputy Tahasildar,Revenue Recovery Offi

Geo Fox Vs Sri.C.v.Sasidharan

V.M. Abdulkhader Vs the Kerala State Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tibes Limited

Aravindan C Vs the Authorised Officer