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.

JUDGMENT:

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

1. The above writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 award passed by the Arbitrator under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2005’), being aggrieved by the determination of the quantum of compensation payable in connection with the building requisitioned for institutional quarantine/COVID containment, invoking Section 65 of the Act 2005.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner is the Proprietor of a lodging house having 25 rooms in Kayamkulam Municipality. The 3^rd respondent, in his capacity as the Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority, exercising the powers under Section 65 of the Act 2005, issued an order for the taking over of the above lodging house of the petitioner for institutional quarantine, by order dated 02.06.2020. Following the said order, the building was taken over by the Village Officer, Kayamkulam, with its 25 keys to the rooms and the key to the compound, as evident from Ext.P1. The petitioner contends that, going by Section 66 (1) of the Act 2005, whenever any authority requisitions any premises, there shall be paid to the person interested compensation, the amount of which shall be determined by taking into consideration the rent payable in respect of the premises, etc. Based on the same, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 claim towards the rent of the rooms. Since there was no payment of rent, the petitioner has approached this Court, filing W.P.(C)No.22844 of 2020, seeking appropriate direction for payment of the rent and surrender of the premises. In view of the repeated orders issued by this Court, the building under the custody of the 3^rd respondent for 155 days, i.e., for the period from 02.06.2020 to 03.11.2020, was handed over to the petitioner. Later, an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was released as compensation, and Rs.4,32,000/- was transferred to the account of the petitioner after deducting the Service Tax of Rs.18,000/-. Extensive damage was caused to the electronics and electrical items, the beddings, fittings and fixtures of the rooms, and for repairing and reconditioning the same, the petitioner had to expend an amount of Rs.4,22,395.26/-. Thereupon, the petitioner has approached the Arbitrator as provided under the first proviso to (1) of the Act, 2005 and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C)No.7566/2021, Ext.P5 claim raised before the Arbitrator was disposed of as per Ext.P6. The petitioner submits that Ext.P6 is against the spirit of (1) of the Act, 2005. The petitioner submits that two Government Orders were issued by the 1^st respondent regarding the payment of compensation for the premises requisitioned for quarantine purposes. The essential grievance raised by the petitioner is that though rent has been paid for the period from 02.06.2020 to 03.11.2020, the amount was fixed based on Ext.P4 Government Order, wherein the petitioner has not been paid rent for 25 rooms for 155 days in possession of the District Disaster Management Authority at the rate of Rs.500/- per room per night, and the claim was limited to 14 days or the number of days that the individual stayed in the facility, whichever is lesser and thus, the compensation for the 25 rooms taken over by the 3^rd respondent for the entire period was not paid, alleging non-occupancy. The petitioner submits that the fixation of rent on the basis of Ext.P4 is absolutely arbitrary and unjust, and it is in the said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. The petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Manager, Aided U.P. School and Another v. T.N.Mah