Disposed

Janardana Kurup.N. v. Kerala State Housing Board

Kerala HC2 Mar 2017WP(C)/5240/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of writ petitions challenging recovery of common amenity charges. It held that since the amount is disputed, the High Court framed the issue for adjudication by directing the first respondent to provide an opportunity of hearing before finalizing liabilities.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to issue notice to petitioners, provide sufficient opportunity of hearing, and adjudicate the issue within four months.

Janardana Kurup.N. Vs Kerala State Housing… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5240 of 2006 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. JANARDANA KURUP. N., PRESIDENT, REVENUE TOWER RENT HOLDERS ASSOCIATION, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

2. M.G. PRADEEP KUMAR, SECRETARY, REVENUE TOWER RENT HOLDERS ASSOCIATION, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA DIVISION, THIRUVALLA.

¶13

3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REVENUE TOWER, ADOOR.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.K.DENNY DEVASSY, SC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2017, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO. 29468 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 5240 of 2006 (W)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXT.P1 A TABULAR STATEMENT SHOWING THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE TENANTS UNDER THE PETITIONER'S ASSOCIATION, NUMBER OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SHOP ROOM, DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF LEASE, AREA DEMISED, RENT PER MONTH AND THE AMOUNT DEMANDED FROM EACH OF THE TENANT AS COMMON AREA CHARGE RESPECTIVELY.

¶21

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/05/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER RELATING TO HIS ROOM.

¶22

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/06/2005 SUBMITTED BY REVENUE TOWER RENT HOLDERS ASSOCIATION, ADOOR TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24/06/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶24

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/07/2005 ADDRESSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶26

EXT.R1A LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 28TH DECEMBER 2002.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶31

W.P.(C). Nos.5240 of 2006 & 29468 of 2008

¶32

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2017

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The issue to be considered in these writ petitions are common in nature and therefore, I heard them together and

¶35

propose to pass a common judgment.

¶36

The subject issue raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions are in respect of the steps taken by the Kerala State Housing Board to recover amounts from the petitioners towards the common amenity charges. According to the petitioners, exorbitant charges are demanded from them and there are various disputes remaining by and between the petitioners and the 1^st respondent. The amount is also disputed. Therefore, it is the contention, the remedy available to the respondents is not to resort to any coercive action, rather than settling the issue through adjudicatory process.

¶37

A recent notice issued by the respondents in W.P.(C) No.29468/2008 shows that, petitioner therein is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,94,433/- as on 31.12.2016. Petitioner

¶38

W.P.(C). 5240 of 2006 & 29468 of 2008 2

¶39

has a contention that, petitioner has vacated the premises on 1.1.2016. Therefore, the amount claimed therein in not true

¶40

or correct.

¶41

Respondents in W.P.(C).No.5240/2006 have filed a counter affidavit refuting the claims and demands raised by the petitioner and the allegations made. However in the nature of order I propose to pass, I do not venture upon to traverse through the counter statements in full. Since the petitioners are disputing the claims raised by the respondents in respect the charges towards the common amenities, it is fair and proper for the respondents to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to contest the proceedings and then finalize the liabilities against them.

¶42

In that view of the matter, I dispose of these writ petitions directing the 1^st respondent to issue notice to the petitioners and adjudicate the issue after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing and participation in the proceedings and attain finality to the same within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the

¶43

W.P.(C). 5240 of 2006 & 29468 of 2008

¶44

¶45

parties will be at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance

¶46

with the orders passed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶49

smv 03.03.2017

Janardana Kurup.N. v. Kerala State Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janardana Kurup.N. v. Kerala State Housing Board

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

Intimate Machines Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala State Women'S Development Corporation Ltd.

Philip M.K. Vs Land Tribunal Special Tahsildar (Lr)

V.R Joseph, Vs State of Kerala

Muralidharan Pillai Vs District Collector, Kollam

A.K.Abdulkhader Vs the Muvattupuzha-Kothamangalam Primary

M/S.Heera Life Style(P)Ltd. Vs the Chief Manager