Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 460
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Represented by the Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 37603 of 2025
Decided On : 30-03-2026
For the Appellants : C.G. Preetha, Deepa G.
For the Respondents: Rohith R. Kartha, M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan, Jai Mohan
Occupiers cannot claim perpetual rights to business premises without documented evidence; existing agreements dictate occupancy terms.
Headnote:(A) Properties Act - License Agreements - The claim for perpetual right of possession over shop rooms owned by a public sector company was denied due to lack of documentation supporting such rights. The court emphasized that the governing documents (Ext.P1) allowed only specified occupancy periods subject to termination and did not grant perpetual rights. (Paras 12-16)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Court fee for writ petition seeking collective relief for multiple individuals must reflect total beneficiaries; opportunity to pay deficit was granted. (Paras 10, 11)
(C) Tender Process - Existing occupiers given the chance to match higher bids in the tender process, indicating no infringement of their rights. (Paras 20, 21)
(D) Outcome of Tender - Some occupiers qualified for continuation of possession; others required to participate in re-tendering; interim arrangements were discussed. (Paras 24)
Result: The writ petition is disposed of as specified, with conditions attached regarding court fees and tender processes.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and establishment of the associations and the public sector company. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute arising from the tender notification and existing agreements. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. existence of occupancy rights and conditions established in governing documents. (Para 12 , 16 , 18 , 21) |
| 4. conclusion and directions regarding tender participation and court fees. (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT :
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
1. The 1st petitioner is the unit of the District Committee of an association of persons registered under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The 2nd petitioner is the member of the 1st petitioner. There are about 37 members in the unit. The members of the 1st petitioner unit are the licensees of the shop rooms situated in FACT Township, owned and managed by Ms. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd (FACT), a Public Sector Company. The members of the 1st petitioner are running various kinds of businesses in the shop rooms. The 2nd respondent is the Chairman and Managing Director of the said Public Sector Company and the 3rd respondent herein is its Estate Officer. The dispute involved in this writ petition pertains to the tender notification published by the 2nd respondent as evidenced by Ext.P3, inviting tenders for allotting the stalls and shop rooms for running different businesses, which are 83 in number.
2. According to the petitioners, the members of the 1st petitioner are the occupiers of the stalls/shop rooms for years together. According to them, present occupiers of the said building were the permanent settlers in the properties, which were specifically acquired for the purpose of the establishment of the FACT. When the FACT was set up, the company took possession of the aforementioned land on the assurance of rehabilitation of the said persons. It is further averred by the petitioners that, in the year 1960, a major fire occurred in the area and the shop rooms and stalls already functioning were destroyed. The management of the FACT, in order to rehabilitate the occupiers of the shop rooms and stalls, have constructed the shopping complex and predecessors in interest of the present occupiers were put in possession of the said shop rooms on the strength of license agreements with an intention to give them perpetual possession. Ext.P2 was produced as one of the documents to substantiate the terms and conditions of the possession which was issued in favor of the 2nd petitioner.
3. According to them, at present the occupiers of the said building are paying the rent at the rate of Rs.8 per Sq.Ft. While so, Ext.P3 was published by the 3rd respondent on 22.09.2025 inviting tenders for the stalls and shop rooms occupied by the petitioners. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 specifies for minimum license fee with respect to each shop room and as per Clause 4 of Ext.P3, the existing occupiers of the shop rooms/stalls will have to participate in the tender if they intend to continue the occupation of the shop rooms. As per Clause 4, the present occupiers are granted an opportunity to match with the highest bid quoted, in case other persons have quoted higher rates. Being aggrieved by Ext.P3, the present occupiers of the shop rooms have submitted representation before the 1st and 2nd respondents as evidenced by Ext.P4. Since the same did not evoke any response, the petitioners have approached this Court with this writ petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
“i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to issue necessary orders to the 2nd respondents to keep in abeyance the proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P3 pending consideration of Exhibit P4.
ii. To declare that the members of the 1st petitioner in the FACT Township are entitled to continue in occupation of their respective shop rooms without participating in the tender.
iii. To declare that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to invit
