Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.M.MANOJ, J
ADV. K.K.THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petitioner’s claim regarding unpaid rent. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details regarding area utilized and rent calculations. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondents’ arguments against the petitioner’s claim. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's determination on just compensation based on actual usage. (Para 21 , 22 , 26) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this writ petition, aggrieved by Exts.P9 and P10, whereby the claim for rent for the excess space utilised by the Family Court was declined.
2. The petitioner, an advocate by profession, offered the second floor of his building, "Kannayil Complex"—situated near the Additional District Court Complex, Mavelikkara—to house the Family Court. As shown in the plan submitted via Ext.P1, the total area of the second floor was 3,670 sq. ft., with the hall designated for court use measuring 1,640 sq. ft. The 1st respondent granted administrative sanction, as evidenced by Ext.P2, to take advance possession of the second floor (Building No. MMC/VII/494 C) for accommodating the court. Subsequently, the 6th respondent (the Assistant Engineer, PWD) fixed the approximate rent at Rs.7/- per sq. ft. The petitioner contends that this rate was unacceptable, a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
