Natural justice mandates that no unilateral rent increase occurs without tenant hearings, as established in prior judgments.

JUDGMENT

K. V. Jayakumar This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . The petitioner, Sri. G. Pankajakshan Nair, states that he is a tenant of one of the shop rooms of Padanayarkulangara Devaswom Shopping Complex owned by the 1^st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. 2. The petitioner states that he has been in occupation of shop room No.5 in Block No.2 of the said complex at Karunagappally, Kollam, wherein he is carrying on electrical business under the name and style ‘P. R. Electricals’.

3. The tenancy commenced in the year 1994. At the time of induction, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- with the Board as security and agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.575/-. Further, it was mutually agreed between the lessor and the lessee that the rent shall be increased by 15% every three years. The petitioner states that the Shopping Complex is in a deteriorated and dilapidated stage and suffers from serious infrastructural deficiencies. He also asserts that it lacks essential facilities such as proper parking space, sanitation and drinking water.

4. According to the petitioner, the respondent Devaswom Board unilaterally enhanced the rent of the shop rooms to ₹10,260/- per month without affording the petitioner any opportunity of being heard, and further demanded a fresh security deposit of ₹2,00,000/-. The petitioner contends that such sudden and exorbitant enhancement of rent is arbitrary, unreasonable, and wholly disproportionate, particularly in view of the age and dilapidated condition of the building and the lack of basic amenities therein.

5. The Board further declared that the existing rent would no longer be accepted from November 2020 onwards, thereby coercing the tenants to succumb to the arbitrary demand. While so, the petitioner and the other tenants approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.23494/2020. This Court, as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 07.10.2022, categorically held that the enhancement of rent by the Board must be undertaken only after granting the affected tenants an opportunity of being heard and upon due consideration of prevailing market standards.

6. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation before the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, on 10.12.2022. Despite the binding judgment and Ext.P2 representation, the Board has persisted in its arbitrary stand and violated the judgment of this Court.

7. On 03.02.2025, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Karunagappally issued Ext.P3 demand notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent at the enhanced rate of rent. The petitioner contends that the demand contained in Ext.P3 is baseless, arbitrary and would amount to unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation on 24.03.2025, pointing out the illegality of Ext.P3 demand notice. The petitioner asserts that he had remitted the agreed rent without any default, in order to substantiate the said contention, he produced Ext.P5 series rent receipts.

8. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

i. To issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P3 demand notice issued by the respondent Devaswom Board through its Assistant Commissioner devaswom, Karunagappally as it is arbitrary and illegal;

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to revise the rent upon due consideration of prevailing market standards and to undertake any revision of rent only after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing;

iii. Issue a writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order