Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. Nagaresh, J.
E. X. Baby Thomas – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Secretary To Government, Local Self Government (Urban) Department and ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 6976 OF 2023
Decided On : 23-05-2025
(A) Government Orders - Ext.P1, Ext.P4, Ext.P5 - Rent exemption - The petitioner, a tenant, sought rent exemption under Ext.P5 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The 2nd respondent, however, refused to implement Ext.P5, citing financial distress. The court found the refusal illegal and directed compliance with the exemption. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Tenant Rights - The petitioner is a bona fide tenant entitled to rent exemption as per government orders. The refusal to grant exemption was deemed insubordination and not justified by the financial claims of the 2nd respondent. (Paras 4-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner leased a shop room from the 2nd respondent and sought rent exemption due to pandemic-related government orders. The 2nd respondent resisted the claim, citing financial burdens.
Findings of Court:
The court directed that the rent exemption amount shall not be recovered from the petitioner until the government responds to the 2nd respondent's request regarding financial concerns.
Issues: The main issues were whether the 2nd respondent was obligated to implement Ext.P5 and the legality of its refusal based on financial claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the 2nd respondent must comply with government orders regarding rent exemption, emphasizing that financial distress claims do not justify non-compliance with legal obligations.
Result: Writ petition disposed of in favor of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
N. Nagaresh, J.
The petitioner has taken on lease shop room No.S-79 from the 2nd respondent-Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) as per registered lease deed dated 28.07.2016. The petitioner is conducting a business of Travel and Tourism in the name and style 'M/s. Princy World Travels', in the shop room. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of rent exemption granted under Ext.P5 issued by the Government of Kerala.
2. The petitioner states that on account of the Covid-19 pandemic, the entire State followed the lockdown orders and the life in Kerala came to a standstill during this time. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 GO dated 29.06.2020 granting rent exemption to the lessees of Government owned building and permitted the Local Self Government Bodies and Development Authorities to grant rent exemption to their lessees for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.05.2020. Subsequently, the Government issued Ext.P2 GO dated 19.05.2021 permitting similar rent exemption. Ext.P4 GO dated 30.09.2021 was then issued ordering that the rent of all leased out Government buildings is exempted for the period from 01.07.2021 to 31.12.2021. By Ext.P5 GO dated 06.10.2022, the Development Authorities were also exempted from levying rent for the period specified therein.
3. Based on Ext.P4, the 1st respondent issued GO dated 06.10.2022 ordering that rent for the building leased out by Development Authorities for the period from June, 2021 to August, 2021 should be exempted fully and rent for the period from September to December, 2021 shall be levied at the rate of 50%. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has not implemented Ext.P5 order holding that it will cause financial burden to the 2nd respondent.
4. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent is not under any financial distress. The 2nd respondent is under the control of the 1st respondent and is bound to implement the Government Orders. The refusal of the 2nd respondent to grant rent exemption pursuant to Ext.P5 is illegal and amounts to insubordination. As per the rent exemption granted under Ext.P5, the petitioner is entitled to rent waiver of Rs.2,87,561.42.
5. The 2nd respondent entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is submitted that Ext.P5 order was not complied with by the 2nd respondent since compliance would have caused the 2nd respondent a loss of Rs.5,02,65,154/- causing severe breakdown to its activities. The allottees of shop rooms under the 2nd respondent were given exemption in rent during April to May, 2020 and May to June, 2021. The 2nd respondent cannot grant more exemption as the same could mean a heavy financial breakdown.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 2nd respondent. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader representing the State of Kerala.
7. The petitioner is a bona fide tenant of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner executed lease deed on 28.07.2016 for a period of ten years. Consequent to Covid-19 pandemic, the Government imposed lockdown. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 GO dated 29.06.2020 permitting the Local Self Government Bodies as well as Development Authorities to grant rent exemption to the lessees of their buildings. Based on Ext.P1, rent exemption was granted by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner and others from 01.04.2020 to 31.05.2020.
8. The Government thereafter issued Ext.P4 GO dated 30.09.2021 granting rent exemption to the lessees of Government owned buildings for the period from July, 2021 to 31.12.2021. The Government then issued Ext.P5 GO dated 06.10.2022 permitting the Development Authorities like the 2nd respondent to grant 100% rent exemption for the period from June, 2021 to August, 2021 and 50% rent exemption from September, 2021 to December, 2021. The 2nd respondent has not extended the benefit of Ext
The refusal of the 2nd respondent to grant rent exemption under government orders was illegal, and compliance with such orders is mandatory despite financial concerns.
The court cannot determine compensation for the closure period in the present writ proceedings if it is a contractual obligation.
Section 1(3), Act applies to areas mentioned in Schedule and Government may by notification in Gazette, apply all or any of provisions of this Act to any other area in State with effect from such dat....
Judicial authority allows for the reconsideration of administrative actions when procedural fairness is not upheld.
The court mandated the reconsideration of rental assessments and protections against coercive actions based on disputed notices in accordance with statutory guidelines.
Compensation for requisitioned premises under the Disaster Management Act cannot be limited by Executive Orders, and must reflect actual rent for the entire duration of requisition.
Amendments to eviction petitions under rent control laws are permissible at any stage of proceedings when necessary to achieve justice.
The court upheld the legality of exemptions granted under the Covid-19 Act for delivery of vacant possession, affirming that such decisions did not violate constitutional rights or principles of natu....
Judicial reviews of exemptions under the COVID-19 Act must consider statutory mandates, and the lack of a right to be heard does not invalidate decisions made under urgent public health circumstances....
The court affirmed that exemptions granted under the COVID-19 Act were lawful and did not violate constitutional rights, recognizing the lack of a statutory right for purchasers to be heard.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
