Disposed

Dr. Chikku Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Sept 2022WP(C)/7766/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding lease rent, the High Court of Kerala directed the Chief Engineer to re-examine documents to verify the correctness of the rent fixation. Upon verifying the potential mistake in the market valuation revised in 2017 versus the 2012 certificate, the court ordered an inquiry within two months.

What did the court decide?

The 5th respondent is directed to consider relevant documents and decide on the correctness of rent fixation within two months, ensuring payment of arrears within subsequent timelines as specified.

Dr. Chikku Abraham Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 31ST BHADRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 7766 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

DR. CHIKKU ABRAHAM
AGED 47 YEARS
KALATHIL HOUSE, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O.,
COCHIN - 682 022
PIN - 682022
BY ADV SHEJI P.ABRAHAM

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (D) DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT BUILDING
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695036
2STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
AYUSH (A) DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033
PIN - 695033
3DIRECTOR
INDIAN SYSTEM, OF MEDICINE,
AROGYABHAVAN, P.B. NO. 182
THIRUVANANTHAURAM - 695 001
PIN - 695001
4STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
PUBLIC WORKS (E) DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033
PIN - 695033
5CHIEF ENGINEER
PWD BUILDING DIVISION
PMG JN., VIKAS BHAVAN
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033
PIN - 695033
6EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD BUILDING DIVISION,
ALAPPUZHA -688001
PIN - 688001

¶9

WP(C) NO. 7766 OF 2022

¶10

¶11

7 THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695001

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

GP APPU P S

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 7766 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 22^nd day of September, 2022

¶19

The petitioner’s land having an extent of 11.73 Ares and 379.49 m2 building, comprised in Resurvey No. 652/13/4 and 654/8A in Pazhaveedu Village in Ambalappuzha Taluk in Alleppey was leased to the Government by the petitioner’s father for conducting the Government Ayurveda Panchakarma Hospital by the 1^st respondent. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.9,120/- following the procedure prescribed in the PWD manual. The rent was made revisable every three years. Accordingly, the rent was revised to Rs. 15,682/- on 11.11.2009 and Rs. 64,121/- on 04.12.2012. The petitioner’s grievance is that in spite of revision of rent to Rs.64,121/- on 04.12.2012, the rent was continued to be paid at the pre-revised rate of Rs. 15,682/-. The petitioner therefore made repeated requests before the 1^st respondent for paying rent at the revised rate. The request did not yield any positive result. While so, the Government vacated the building on 28.02.2022, without paying the revised rent. Hence this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 7766 OF 2022

¶21

¶22

“I)Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders on Exhibit P4 report fixing the rent @ Rs.64,121/per month w.e.f 04.11.2012 for the petitioner’s building.

¶23

ii) Issue a writ of order directing the 2^nd respondent to approve Exhibit P4 order of the 5^th respondent fixing rent @Rs.64,121/per month w.e.f 4.11.2012.”

¶24

2.Adv. Sheji P Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rent was revised on 04.12.2012 based on Ext.P4 order of the Chief Engineering PWD (Buildings) Thiruvananthapuram, which, in turn, was based on Ext.P4(a) rent certificate issued by the Executive Engineer PWD, Building Division, Alappuzha. It is contended that a perusal of Exts.P4 and P4(a) would show that re-fixation was effected after taking into account the market value of the land as well as the building. Reference is made to Ext.P6 communication issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner to contend that no mistakes was found in the revision of the rent carried out under Exts.P4 and P4(a). It is contended that, having agreed to pay rent in accordance with the periodical revision and having occupied the building till 28.02.2022, respondents 2 and 3 are bound to pay the balance amount due towards enhanced rent for the period

¶25

WP(C) NO. 7766 OF 2022

¶26

04.12.2012 to 28.02.2022.

¶27

3.Adv. P.S Appu, learned Government Pleader submitted

¶28

that on noticing the steep hike in rent on 04.12.2012, a report was sought from the Tahsildar, Ambalapuzha. Accordingly, Ext.P4(d) was submitted to the Executive Engineer PWD, Building Division. Therein it was stated that the property is situated in two different survey numbers and as on 01.11.2012, the market value of the property comprised in resurvey No.652/13 was Rs.2,24,000/- per Are and that of the property comprised in resurvey No.654/8A was Rs.1,68,000/- per Are. The market value of both properties were added together and the market value mistakenly fixed as Rs.3,92,000/- as on 27.11.2017. The Tahsildar also stated that relevant files were destroyed and copies could not be traced even after extensive search.

¶29

Learned Government Pleader submitted that the huge disparity in rent between that fixed in 2019 and in 2012 had resulted in an enquiry and the matter is presently pending before the officials of the Public Works Department. It is submitted that after considering all relevant aspects and

¶30

¶31

WP(C) NO. 7766 OF 2022

¶32

documents an appropriate decision will be taken with respect to the rent payable.

¶33

5.Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and having gone through the documents, it is seen that, as on the date of issuance of Exts.P4 and P4(a), the rent was validly fixed based on the market value of Rs.9,50,617/- per Are. After scrutiny of the documents, the Land Revenue Commissioner also did no find any mistake in the fixation of rent. The documents also revealed that after five years, ie; in 2017, the market value of the property was fixed at a lesser amount of Rs.3,92,000/-.

¶34

6.It is my considered opinion that the above are aspects which should engage the attention of the PWD authorities. The petitioner cannot be made to wait indefinitely for reason of an alleged mistake in fixing the market value.

¶35

Taking into account the above circumstances, the 5^th respondent is directed to consider relevant documents, including Exts.P4, P4(a) and P6, and take a decision on the correctness or otherwise of the fixation of rent for the

¶36

WP(C) NO. 7766 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

petitioner’s building. The above process shall be completed within two months. If fixation of the rent is found to be correct, the balance rent payable to the petitioner towards rent shall be paid within three months. If for any reason, the fixation of rent as on 04.12.2012 is found to be wrong, the 5^th respondent shall cause a fresh rent certificate to be issued based on the then prevailing market value and place it before the rent committee for appropriate decision as regards the rent of the petitioner’s building. If the above process is to be adopted, the same shall be completed within three months and arrears of rent paid within a further period of two months.

¶39

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶40

¶41

WP(C) NO. 7766 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7766/2022

¶44

`PETITIONER EXHIB` `Exhibit P1`	`ITS` `COPY OF THE` `16.5.11 ISSU` `FIXING THE R` `15,682/-`	`LETTER NO. D3-1568/10 DTD` `ED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT` `ENT FOR THE BUILDING AS RS.`
`Exhibit P1(A)`	`COPY OF THE` `12 DTD 16.5.` `RESPONDENT`	`RENT CERTIFICATE NO. 2/EE/11-` `11 ISSUED BY THE 6TH`
`Exhibit P2`	`COPY OF THE` `2591/2012/H&` `RESPONDENT`	`ORDER NO. G.O (RT)` `FWD DTD 4.8.2012 OF THE 1ST`
`Exhibit P3`	`COPY OF THE` `PETITIONER'S` `RESPONDENT D`	`AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE` `FATHER AND THE 3RD` `TD 1.11.2012`
`Exhibit P4`	`COPY OF THE` `DTD 26.03.20` `RESPONDENT F` `BUILDING AS`	`ORDER NO. CE/BL/ALPY/921/2011` `15 ISSUED BY THE 5TH` `IXING THE RENT FOR THE` `RS. 64,121/- W.E.F 4.12.2012`
`Exhibit P4(A)`	`COPY OF THE` `01/EE/15-16` `6TH RESPONDE` `BUILDING AS`	`RENT CERTIFICATE NO.` `DTD 21.04.2015 ISSUED BY THE` `NT FIXING RENT FOR THE` `RS. 64,121/- W.E.F 4.12.12`
`Exhibit P5`	`COPY OF THE` `A1/382/2018/` `OFFICE OF TH` `RESPONDENT`	`COMMUNICATION NO.` `AYUSH DTD 12.12.2018 FROM THE` `E 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD`
`Exhibit P6`	`COPY OF THE` `9424/2018 DT` `REVENUE COMM` `RESPONDENT`	`ENQUIRY REPORT NO. L.R(A)6-` `D 13.04.2018 BY THE LAND` `ISSIONER BEFORE THE 3RD`
`Exhibit P7`	`COPY OF THE` `269/2016/PWD` `4TH RESPONDE`	`ORDER NO. G.O.(RT) NO.` `DTD 05.02.2016 PASSED BY THE` `NT`
`Exhibit P8`	`COPY OF THE` `THE PETITION` `RESPONDENT D`	`REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY` `ER'S FATHER BEFORE THE 3RD` `TD 01.03.2018`
`Exhibit P8(A)`	`COPY OF THE` `THE PETITION` `DTD 04.07.20`	`REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY` `ER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT` `18`
`Exhibit P9`	`COPY OF THE` `RECEIVED BY`	`NOTICE DTD 08.02.2021` `THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P10`	`COPY OF THE` `PETITIONER T`	`REPLY NOTICE SENT BY THE` `O THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD`

¶45

WP(C) NO. 7766 OF 2022

¶46

¶47

29.12.2021
Exhibit P11COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 28.02.2022 ISSUED
BY THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE
HOSPITAL TO THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER
Respondent Exhibits
Exhibit R2(A)TRUE COPY OF RENT CERTIFICATE DATED
16/05/2011
Exhibit R2(B)TRUE COPY OF RENT CERTIFICATE DATED
21/04/2015
Exhibit R2(C)TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY 6 TH
RESPONDENT DATED 22/12/2021
Exhibit R2(D)TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
17/06/22

Dr. Chikku Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Chikku Abraham 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

Krishna Kumar.S Vs the State of Kerala

Sampath v Vs State of Kerala

Xxxxx Vs District Magistrate

Diya Constructions Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Thomas Vs State of Kerala

K.R.Ajith Kumar Vs State of Kerala