Government retains the right to cancel lease agreements for non-payment of rent and violations of established conditions under statutory regulations.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a co-operative Society by name Ex-Service Men's Co-operative Wood Industries Limited, is aggrieved by Ext.P11 Government Order dated 04.05.2024, which cancelled the lease/license arrangement in respect of 45.367 cents of land in favour of the petitioner Society. It is the petitioner's claim that the Society was formed and functioning only for rehabilitating soldiers of the Second World War, for which, a fund was constituted and a factory was started, utilizing the said fund. An old building used by the Travancore Military Force was handed over to the petitioner by the Government on scrap value, together with 80 cents of land, as per a lease deed. Petitioner claims that more than Rs.10 lakhs was spent for preserving the factory building, at various stages. The Society suffered financial difficulties during 2013, and demand notices were issued claiming lease rent, whereupon the petitioner Society took a decision to surrender a portion of the land. Accordingly, the arrears were waived off, and 36.4 cents of land was surrendered. A separate license arrangement was entered into in respect of 45.367 cents of land, in which the old building was situated. The rent fixed was Rs.1,000/- per month and the period of the arrangement was 30 years, or until an alternate convenient property is made available to the petitioner, whichever is earlier. The license deed is produced at Ext.P4. The following list of dates and events would narrate the things which transpired thereafter, upto issuance of the impugned Ext.P11 Order, cancelling the lease/license arrangement.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondents. Inasmuch as the subject property has already been given to the Department of Cultural Affairs, pursuant to cancellation of the license arrangement vide Ext.P11, the said Department was impleaded as the additional 5^th respondent. Heard the additional 5^th respondent, as well.

3. This Court notice that a definite license arrangement has been entered into by and between the parties as per Ext.P4 in the year 2010, after surrendering a portion of the original lease-hold land, wherefore, the claims and contentions of the parties prior to the execution of Ext.P4 need not be looked into for the purpose of this Writ Petition. However, one contention of the petitioner needs to be addressed before concluding as above. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of this Court to Ext.P2 Government Order dated 20.05.1967, according sanction to hand over the old development building adjoining the cantonment house to the petitioner Society to accommodate their factory. Based on Clause 2(i) of Ext.P2, it is the petitioner's contention that the building was sold to the petitioner Society at scrap value, apart from leasing out 80 cents of land. Inasmuch as the building is sold, the same cannot be resumed by the Government, since the petitioner has absolute title over the building.According to the learned counsel, the respondent/Government has no case that the payment stipulated in Clause 2(i) of Ext.P2 has not been made by the petitioner. Refuting this contention stoutly, learned Senior Government Pleader, on behalf of the 3^rd respondent, would submit that the amount contemplated in Clause 2(i) of Ext.P2 was not paid. It is specifically contended so in paragraph no.2 of the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent. That is why the lease evidenced by Ext.P4 of the year 2011 comprised of the land and building as well, which has been accepted by the petitioner Society without any demur, whatsoever.

4. Having heard the learned counsel on this poi