IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.
K.N.Fajar, S/o. C.K.Kasmi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondents
WP(C) No. 36503 of 2015
Decided on : 25-02-2025
(A) Writ of Certiorari - Natural Justice - The petitioner sought to quash orders related to arrears of rent and to direct fresh consideration of his representation. The petitioner claimed non-execution of a license agreement hindered his ability to utilize the space. (Paras 1 - 2 )
(B) Legal Principles - The principle 'he who hears must decide' was discussed, with the court affirming that procedural irregularities do not invalidate decisions unless prejudice is shown. (Paras 9 , 13 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, managing partner of a business, was allotted storage space but faced issues with rent arrears and lack of a registered license agreement. He contended that he could not utilize the premises without the agreement and disputed the amount claimed by the GCDA. (Paras 1 - 2 )
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had occupied the premises without a legally binding lease and had failed to substantiate his claims regarding rent payments. (Paras 14 ) (E)
Issues: The main issues included whether the orders violated natural justice and the legality of the rent claims. (Paras 12 ) (F)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that procedural irregularities do not invalidate decisions unless they cause prejudice, affirming the legitimacy of GCDA's actions based on the petitioner's failure to execute the lease. (Paras 13 ) (G)
Result: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to remit the amounts due. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT :
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
“a. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P13 order and Ext.P12 order ;
b. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider afresh Ext.P7 representation filed by the petitioner ;
c. pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case ;
and
d. award costs.”
2. Petitioner is the Managing Partner of an entity engaged in the business of household items. In the year 2005, he had applied for and was allotted storage space in certain rooms measuring 6364 sq. feet in the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium by the 2nd respondent Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) as per Ext.P1 offer letter dated 28.03.2005 upon depositing the amounts as directed therein and upon compliance with the conditions therein. It was specifically stipulated in Ext.P1 that a licence agreement had to be registered at the cost and expense of the petitioner within 15 days of remittance of the advance amount and that permission to use the space will be granted only on production of the registered licence agreement in original. It is the contention of the petitioner that though a draft licence deed was prepared and presented for execution before the 2nd respondent the same was never executed. Subsequently, vide Ext.P2 dated 03.10.2005 further amounts were sought towards advance rent and security deposit and the petitioner was also permitted to carry out repair works and the cost of such repairs was permitted to be adjusted from future rent. Thereafter in the year 2006 the petitioner was issued with Ext.P3 dated 26.09.2006 directing to furnish further additional security which too was deposited and a request was preferred for the execution of the licence which was to no avail. It is contended by the petitioner that he was unable to utilize the rented premises due to the absence of the registered licence deed as without such deed, it was impossible to take registration under the relevant statutes Sales Tax Act., Value Added Tax for running a godown. While so in the year 2011, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 directing him to pay Rs.29,83,870/- towards arrears of rent for the period 29.03.2005 to 10.03.2010. Petitioner replied to the same vide Ext.P5 pointing out that no licence deed had been executed and that the repair cost incurred by him had not been adjusted to the rent arrears. Thereafter, Ext.P6 demand notice dated 10.08.2012 was issued to the petitioner for an amount of Rs.28,85,865/- which had been arrived at after deducting the amount of Rs.98,005/- spent for repairs. Petitioner preferred a representation Ext.P7 dated 21.08.2012 before the concerned minister and obtained Ext.P8 order which inter alia called for a report as well as directed the GCDA to keep the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 in abeyance. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of Ext.P8 order of the Government, the GCDA issued another demand notice dated 24.09.2012 demanding from the petitioner an amount of Rs.80,13,778/- within 7 days towards arrears of rent for the period 29.03.2005 to 30.09.2012. The petitioner then filed W.P (C) No.22862 of 2012 before this Court which led to Ext.P10 judgment dated 19.10.2012 inter alia directing as follows:
“8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner can be directed to remit certain amounts in view of the huge liability shown in Ext.P11, to the tune of more than Rs.80 lakhs. The proceedings pursuant to Ext.P11 will be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the Government, on condition of the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.10 lakhs within a period of three weeks. Since the parties have some dispute regarding the total payments to be made, further action will depend upon the order to be passed by the Government. There will be
The principle of natural justice requires that procedural irregularities do not invalidate decisions unless they cause prejudice, affirming the legitimacy of governmental actions.
Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited to reviewing the legality of process rather than re-evaluating facts. Eviction upheld for breaches of lease conditions.
The assessment of damages for unauthorized property use persists despite prior communications, reaffirmed by policy provisions, with petitioners failing to establish rights for commercial utilization....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the Principles of Natural Justice in quasi-judicial proceedings, the lack of evidence of subletting of the actual governm....
Mere payment of damages does not create a right in favour of a person who may otherwise be illegally occupying public premises.
Government retains the right to cancel lease agreements for non-payment of rent and violations of established conditions under statutory regulations.
The court emphasized that eviction under the Public Premises Act requires subjective satisfaction of unauthorized occupation, ensuring fairness in administrative actions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.