Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15452
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANANDH T.A. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/29077/2020
The court reaffirmed the right of a tenant to contest eviction by settling outstanding dues.
Headnote:
Eviction - Lease Agreement - Notice to Evict
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Akshaya Centre Entrepreneur, faced eviction from the Kollam Collectorate for non-payment of lease rent. The outstanding amount was Rs.19,377.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petitioner to apply for an extension of the license upon paying the overdue rent, mandating that no coercive action would be taken during the application process.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be allowed to contest the eviction notice by paying the outstanding lease rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner is entitled to submit an application to object to the eviction notice and seek consideration for an extension upon payment of dues.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to apply for extension upon payment.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an Akshaya Centre Entrepreneur for the Ramankulangara Akshaya Location having location code KLM-158 within the limits of the Kollam Corporation, Kollam District. Apparently, Ext. P6 notice is issued to evict the petitioner from the premises of Kollam Collectorate basically for the reason that the petitioner has not deposited the lease rent amounting to Rs.19,377/-.
2. The sole relief sought for by the petitioner, during the course of argument, is that the petitioner is prepared to submit an application before the concerned statutory authority and pay the entire outstanding amount.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to submit a suitable application objecting to Ext. P6 and seeking extension of the licence of the centre, and direct that on payment of the entire outstanding amount, the application shall be considered by the second respondent at the earliest possible and at any rate within three weeks from the date of receipt of the application from the petitioner. Till such time, no coercive action pertaining to Ext. P6 shall be taken against the petitioner.
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE DATED
19.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 28.02.2009.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 04.04.17. BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF KERALA STATE E GOVERNANCE AWARD ISSUED BY THE HONBLE CHIEF MINISTER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2016 FOR THE BEST ENTREPRENEUR 2016.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. L2-9038/2019 DATED
02.12.2020 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION (CIVIL), NO.
39373/2018 DATED 03.12.2018.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /True Copy/ PS To Judge.
rv
