Point of law: Lease granted in favour of the petitioner is a lease independent of the lease granted to the petitioner's husband. So also, the Panchayat was vested with power either to grant lease in favour of the petitioner or to decline the grant of lease.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext. P4 order issued by the Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayat bearing No.A2-18874/2015 dated 20.08.2015, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 838880/-, which apparently is an amount due on the basis of the remission granted to petitioner’s husband and herself to the lease amount from the year 2006-2007 to 2014-2015, and for a further direction to the respondents to keep in abeyance all penal and recovery proceedings pertaining to Exts.P4 and P5 against the petitioner. Ext. P5 is the relevant portion of the audit report incorporating the details with respect to the additional rent to be collected from the occupants of the building complex of the local body for the period from 2006-2007 to 2014-2015.

2. At the outset, it is pointed out that even though Ext. P4 impugned notice is issued by the Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayat, later the Panchayat was upgraded as a Municipality and that is how the second respondent Municipality is made a party to the proceedings.

3. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner is a widow, who is conducting a tourist home in the premises let out by the Panchayat in the first and second floor of a shopping complex presently owned by the Sulthan Bathery Municipality. In fact, the tourist home was run by the petitioner's husband from the year 1994 and till his death in the year 2010. After his death, the lease agreement was transferred in the name of the petitioner as per Exhibit P3 resolution of the Panchayat.

4. The tourist home is conducted in a three storied shopping complex constructed by the Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayat in 1976. According to the petitioner, right from the beginning of the lease period, the petitioner's husband and thereafter, the petitioner were carrying out the repair and maintenance of the building and the Panchayat has not conducted any sort of maintenance in the building at any point of time.

5. While so, during the year 2004-2005, on account of the shortage of tourist inflow and also due to the old style of the building, the occupancy of the tourist home became nominal and the business suffered huge loss and the payment of stipulated monthly rent of Rs.23,023/- with 5% annual increase was found to be unaffordable and according to the petitioner, most of the other occupants of the trade centre faced similar adverse situations. Thereupon, the occupants of the building, including the husband of the petitioner, submitted a representation to the then Panchayat committee requesting remission and refixation of the monthly rent fixed for their respective commercial spaces.

6. On receipt of the representation, the matter was placed before the Panchayat committee, which after having discussion on the issue, appointed a sub committee, which conducted an enquiry into the matter and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to all the traders, submitted a common report to the Panchayat with recommendations to grant remission. Thereafter, the report was placed before the Panchayat Committee meeting held on 07.12.2004 and the committee, after due deliberation and consideration of the issue, decided to reduce the existing monthly rental of the occupants by 20%, evident from Ext. P2 minutes dated 07.12.2004.

7. The case projected by the petitioner is that it is quite clear and evident from Ext. P2 minutes that the decision was taken for reducing 20% based on the old age of the building, non maintenance of the rooms by the Panchayat and also on account of the low occupancy in the tourist home. Anyhow, on the basis of the decision of the Grama Panchayat committee, the then Secretary of the Panchayat issued orders refixing the monthly rent reducing 20% from the existing rent with effect from December, 2004 onwards. In fact, the lease was transferred in favour of the petitioner consequent to the death of her husband as per a decision of the Panchayat Com