Court affirms obligation of Board to ensure lease rental is not below prevailing market rent, dismisses claims of long-term tenants challenging fixation procedures.

JUDGMENT

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.

The instant Writ Petition has been filed by certain individuals who are tenants of t he Cochin Devaswom Board and are conducting their respective businesses in the Vadakkumnathan Building and Shiva Sakthi Building, owned by the Board and situated in the heart of Thrissur town.

2. According to the petitioners, they have been in occupation of rooms in the said buildings from the year 1989 onwards. While so, in terms of Ext.P1 Circular dated 31.08.2019, amendments were introduced to the existing by-laws governing the grant and renewal of lease/licence in respect of shop rooms occupied by the petitioners. Under the said circular, the p eriod of tenancy was refixed as 11 months, with a further stipulation that upon the expiry of each such period, there would be an enhancement of 11% in the rent. Several other modifications were also introduced. Aggrieved by the said circular, the petitioners herein, along with other similarly situated tenants, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 31039 of 2019.

3. A Division Bench of this Court considered the contentions raised by the tenants and, upon referring to the law laid down inT. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board ,[ 2022 (4) KLT 798 ] , as reiterated in H.N.Vijayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board ,[2022:KER:50584] , came to the conclusion that Ext.P1 Circular dated 31.08.2019 could not be sustained. This Court directed the Cochin Devaswom Board to ensure that p roper rental income/licence fee is generated from the shop rooms situated in the shopping complexes owned by the respective Devaswoms under its m anagement. It was categorically observed t hat the rent so fixed shall not be lower than the prevailing market rent in the locality.

4. Taking note of t he peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court further directed the tenants/petitioners in the said W rit Petition to submit individual representations highlighting their grievances. Correspondingly, directions were issued to the Board to consider such representations and to take appropriate decisions within the time stipulated. Specific directions were issued to the Secretary of the Board to refix the market rent/licence fee of the respective shop rooms after issuing individual notices to the tenants and after affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The tenants were also permitted to submit written submissions raising their respective contentions. This Court further reiterated in paragraph 23 of the judgment that the decision so taken by the Secretary of the Board shall strictly conform to the principles laid down therein and that, while refixing the monthly rent or licence fee, due care shall be taken to ensure that the same is not lower than the prevailing market rent in the locality.

5. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the petitioners and other tenants were called for a personal hearing. They submitted objections to the proposed enhancement, contending that the same was arbitrary.

6. Thereafter, the Board proceeded to fix the rent by taking into account the market value and relevant parameters applicable to the buildings in question. Copies of the individual orders issued by the Board in respect of the petitioners are produced as Ext.P3 series.

7. Similar orders were passed in respect of other tenants as well. Those tenants approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 33423 of 2024, challenging orders similar to Ext. P3 series. The said writ petition was heard in detail, and t he parties advanced their respective contentions. After consid