Disposed¶32

Binith M.R., v. the Secretary

Kerala HC14 Mar 2025WP(C)/2636/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rent arrears demand notice recalculation; Kottayam Municipality; Ext.P11 demand of Rs.8,08,131/-; admitted calculation mistakes (Ext.P15); plinth area measurement dispute; Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution Appeal No.299/2023 dismissed as not pressed on 28.01.2025; fresh demand notice directed; opportunity to be heard; two-month compliance timeline; writ petition disposed with directions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the 1st respondent to reconsider and reassess the arrears of rent and issue a fresh demand, taking into account the petitioner's grievances on plinth-area measurement after giving an opportunity to be heard, within two months. ¶32

Binith M.R., Vs the Secretary — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the 1st respondent (Secretary, Kottayam Municipality) should reconsider and reassess the arrears of rent demanded in Ext.P11, given the admitted calculation mistakes and the fact that the pending appeal (the stated legal impediment) has been dismissed as not pressed. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

The only legal impediment highlighted in Ext.P15 for reconsidering the Ext.P11 demand, namely the pendency of the appeal, no longer exists, as the appeal (No.299/2023) was dismissed as not pressed on 28.01.2025.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider and reassess the arrears of rent allegedly payable by the petitioner and issue a fresh demand.

¶32

Key takeaways

While revising the demand made in Ext.P11, the grievances of the petitioner with regard to the measurement of the plinth area of the building shall also be taken into account, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.ratio¶36
Necessary orders on the reconsideration and fresh demand shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam), W.P.(C) No. 2636 of 2025 - Binith M.R. v. The Secretary, Kottayam Municipality and others - decided 14.03.2025 by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. The petitioner, occupying a municipal building, challenged Ext.P11 demand notice raising arrears of rent of Rs.8,08,131/-, alleging serious mistakes in the calculation in terms of the area and rates applied. By Ext.P15 the 1st respondent admitted mistakes in calculating the amount shown in Ext.P11 but declined to act, citing a challenge pending before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution; that appeal (Appeal No.299/2023) was dismissed as not pressed on 28.01.2025. Holding that the only legal impediment to reconsidering Ext.P11 no longer existed, the writ petition was disposed of with directions to the 1st respondent to reconsider and reassess the arrears of rent and issue a fresh demand, taking into account the petitioner's grievances regarding measurement of the plinth area of the building after giving him an opportunity to be heard, with necessary orders to be passed within two months of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶1

2025:KER:22216

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946

¶6

WP(C) NO. 2636 OF 2025

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

BINITH M.R., MANAGING PARTNER HOTEL RAJADHANI, XVII/645, MUNICIPAL BUS STAND BUILDING, POST OFFICE ROAD KOTTAYAM RESIDING AT FLAT NO 2A SFS KINGDOM, NEAR CHOICE SCHOOL THRIPUNITHARA, PIN - 682301

¶9

BY ADVS. S.KRISHNA GOVIND R.

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, YMCA RD, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

¶13

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

¶14

W.P.C No. 2636 of 2025

¶15

¶16

2025:KER:22216

¶17

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

Smt.Deepa.V, G.P, Shri. Ajith Joy, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.C No. 2636 of 2025

2025:KER:22216

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P11 notice issued by the 1^st respondent, wherein an amount of Rs.8,08,131/- is demanded, as the arrears of the rent payable in respect of the building occupied by the petitioner. The specific case of the petitioner is that there are serious mistakes in the calculation of the amount mentioned therein, in terms of the area for which the rent is demanded and also the rates applied for the same. The writ petition is submitted in such circumstances.

¶25

In response to Ext.P14 submitted by the petitioner highlighting the mistakes in the calculation, Ext.P15 communication was issued by the 1^st respondent, admitting that there occurred certain mistakes in calculating the amount shown in Ext.P11. However, according to the said respondent, as a challenge against the demand notice is pending consideration before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution, they are unable to take any action including the revision of Ext.P11.

¶26

W.P.C No. 2636 of 2025

¶27

¶28

2025:KER:22216

¶29

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

¶30

petitioner that he had already withdrawn the said appeal on 28.01.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner made available the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution on 28.01.2025 in Appeal No.299/2023, wherein, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

¶31

Thus it is evident from the records that, the only legal impediment highlighted in Ext.P15 for reconsidering Ext.P11 demand i.e., the pendency of the appeal, is not longer in existence.

¶32

In such circumstances, This writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1^st respondent to reconsider and reassess the arrears of rent allegedly payable by the petitioner and issue a fresh demand to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the petitioner is having certain disputes with regard to the measurement of the building as well. Therefore, it is ordered that while revising the demand made in Ext.P11, the grievances of the petitioner with regard to the

¶33

W.P.C No. 2636 of 2025

¶34

¶35

2025:KER:22216

¶36

measurement of the plinth area of the building shall also be taken into account, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

rpk

¶41

W.P.C No. 2636 of 2025

¶42

¶43

2025:KER:22216

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2636/2025

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶46

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER DATE	THE FL 11 LICENSE OF THE D 01.04.2022
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF 1ST RESPONDENT	THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DATED 26.07.2022
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF OF LICENSE DATE	THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL D 08.02.2023
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF 1ST RESPONDENT	THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DATED 08.02.2023
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF ISSUED BY THE C RESPONDENT MUNI	THE LETTER DATED 19.03.2018 HAIRPERSON OF THE 1ST CIPALITY
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF PAYMENT OF RENT	THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING DATED 07.06.2022
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF PAYMENT OF RENT	THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING DATED 07.07.2022
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF PAYMENT OF RENT	THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING DATED 27.08.2022
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF 38617 OF 2022 D	THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO ATED 30.11.2022
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF MUNICIPAL COUNC DATED 02.03.202	THE DECISION OF THE IL OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT 3
Exhibit P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST RESPOND	THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY ENT DATED 14.03.2023
Exhibit P12	A TRUE COPY OF BUILDING	THE COMPLETION PLAN OF THE

¶47

W.P.C No. 2636 of 2025

¶48

¶49

2025:KER:22216

¶50

Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2024

¶51

Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2024 Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.12.2024

Binith M.R., v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binith M.R., v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandran, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Rajamma.a.S., Vs the Mulavukad Grama Panchayath

Rosamma Agustine Alias Alice, Vs the Chairman

S Mani Nair, Vs State of Kerala

Sajeesh N.S., Vs the Secretary, Thiruvilwamala Grama Panchayat

K.T. Siraj, Vs Kozhikode Corporation