Disposed

Snehalatha, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Oct 2019WP(C)/17814/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking to surrender uninhabitable GCDA shop rooms without paying arrears. Court directed authorities to forward representation to Government to consider waiving arrears without hearing petitioners forecourt to postpone recovery pending decision.

What did the court decide?

Direct authorities to forward petitioners' representation to Government to consider waiving rent arrears and interest.

Snehalatha, Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 24TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.17814 OF 2019(B)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SNEHALATHA, AGED 49 YEARS

¶8

W/O. BHASKARAN S, 39/1932 PANAMITTOM THRIKOVIL ROAD, VENNALA S.O, ERNAKULAM - 682 028

¶9

2 SANTHA THOMAS, AGED 67 YEARS W/O. C J THOMAS, ORIENTAL GARDENS 13 A B N TOWER, KARUKAPALLI, ELAMAKKARA, ELAMAKKARA S.O, ERNAKULAM 682 026

¶10

3 SASIKALA GOVINDA SHENOY, AGED 77 YEARS

¶11

W/O. T.V GOVINDA SHENOY 5827, 58/5651, RADHESHYAM T D EAST SANNIDHI ROAD, ERNAKULAM S.O, ERNAKULAM COLLEGE,ERNAKULAM 682 035

¶12

4 THOMAS JOHN KITHU, AGED 62 YEARS S/O. LATE JOHN KITHU, KITHU HOUSE, KANDANADU P.O, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM 682 305

¶13

5 SASIDHARAN T.V, AGED 70 YEARS S/O. T K VELU, THIRUNILATHU HOUSE, KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA ERNAKULAM 682 013

¶14

6 AUGUSTIN OUSEPH, AGED 72 YEARS

¶15

S/O. OUSEPH, NADAKKAL HOUSE, CHERTHALA, CMC-3, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA 688 523

¶16

7 C M DANIEL, AGED 79 YEARS S/O. C V MATHEW, BETHESDA H NO. 34/109 B, ARAKAKADAVU ROAD, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM 682 024

¶17

8 MATHEW FRANCIS, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. FRANCIS, 3060, EZHUTHAIKAL, 44, KALOOR,

¶18

WP(C).No.17814 OF 2019(B)

¶19

¶20

COCHIN CORPORATION,ERNAKULAM 682 017

¶21

9 C V CHERIAN, AGED 67 YEARS

¶22

S/O. VARGHESE, 2886 C, CHERUVATHOOR, 38 GANDHI NAGAR, KATHRIKADAVU, COCHIN CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM 682 017

¶23

10 PADINJATTEDATHU MAMMEN JOHN, AGED 62 YEARS S/O. P JOHN MAMMEN, 44/1158, PADINJATTEDATHU CHRISLAND LFC ROAD, NEAR PAVAKULAM TEMPLE, KALOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM 682 017

¶24

11 SAYED ABDULKADER BAFAKYH AGED 64 YEARS S/O. SAYED HAMID BAFAKYH, FABI, GURUKRIPA LANE, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN 17

¶25

BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

¶26

RESPONDENTS:

¶27

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001

¶28

2 GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GCDA) KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI 682 020 REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN

¶29

3 THE SECRETARY, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI 682020.

¶30

4 ADDL. R4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶31

(ADDITIONAL R4 IS SUO MOTU IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/10/2019) R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.J.MATHEW (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE SRI.VINOD - GP

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

WP(C).No.17814 OF 2019(B)

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C) No.17814 of 2019

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioners are allottees of shop rooms in a shopping complex constructed by the Greater Cochin Development Authority, the second respondent. The case set out by the petitioners is that they were unable to use the shop rooms for the last almost eight years as they are not fit for occupation due to various reasons.

¶38

It is stated by the petitioners that similarly

¶39

placed persons have been permitted by the Government to surrender the premises without obligation to pay rent arrears and interest. The petitioners seek similar treatment. Ext.P9 is the representation preferred by the petitioners in this connection to the second respondent. The petitioners seek appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

¶40

¶41

WP(C).No.17814 OF 2019(B)

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶43

petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

¶44

Ext.P2 is the order of the Government, as per which it is seen that, certain other occupants of the very same building have been permitted to surrender the premises without obligation to pay rent arrears a nd interest.

¶45

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to forward Ext.P9 representation to the additional fourth respondent, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and directing the additional fourth respondent to deal with the same in accordance with law having regard to Ext.P2 order, after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, within within six weeks from the date of receipt of Ext.P9 representation. Needless to say that further proceedings for recovery of the arrears of rent and

¶46

WP(C).No.17814 OF 2019(B)

¶47

¶48

interest due from the petitioners shall be deferred until

¶49

a decision in this regard is taken by the Government.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶52

¶53

WP(C).No.17814 OF 2019(B)

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX

¶56

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶57

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12-09- 2014 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 01-06-2012
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/10/2013 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14-12-2017 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24-05-2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10-04-19 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10-04- 2019 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8	THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING.
EXHIBIT P9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS'	EXHIBITS: NIL

¶58

\TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

¶59

Snehalatha, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Snehalatha, 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

J.Aneeze, Vs State of Kerala

V N Narayanan Namboothiri Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafoor Vs the State of Kerala

Jayakumar.v. Vs the State Bank of India

M/S.Pushkarraj Constructions Pvt.Ltd. Vs Union of India

Yoonus T.B., Vs the District Collector