Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16489
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J
MOHAMMED ILLYAS AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP(C)/15434/2009
SRI.V.PREMCHAND 2) MOHAMMED YAHIYA TAHIRA MANZIL3) MOHAMMED EESA TAHIRA MANZIL4) MOHAMMED ASLAM TAHIRA MANZIL
Tenants cannot seek a rent reduction or appeal against decisions regarding existing rental agreements without legal provision.
Headnote:
Rent - Tenancy - No Provision for Rent Reduction - The court interprets municipal regulations governing rental agreements and affirms that there is no legal basis for tenants to appeal decisions regarding rent modification.
Fact of the Case:
Four brothers, tenants of shop rooms, sought a rent reduction from the Municipality after defaulting on payments. Their requests were denied based on existing agreements and council decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no legal provision for tenants to appeal the Council's decision or seek a revision of rent, confirming the Secretary's stance as valid and procedurally sound.
Issues: Whether tenants can appeal against the Secretary's decision regarding rent modification.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of a legal provision for appealing the Secretary's decision rendered the petitioners' actions ineffective and without merit.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1.This writ petition is filed by four brothers who are tenants of different shop rooms of the first respondent Municipality. They have agreed to pay a rent at a particular rate and have executed agreements in favour of the Municipality. Later, they filed representation to the Secretary to reduce the rent. That was, obviously, impermissible in view of the rent fixed in terms of the decision of the Council of the Municipality and because rental agreements were also entered into, in terms thereof. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Municipality that as of now, the petitioners have defaulted payment of rent, at least, for about six months. The representation of the petitioners for reducing the rent was answered by the Secretary stating that it cannot be done in view of the existing decision of the Council and also the agreements between the parties. The petitioners, therefore, filed "appeals" against that decision. The Secretary issued a communication stating that those appeals could not be considered in view of the already existing decision of the Council on the issue.
2.The point of law raised is that the Secretary has himself decided the appeals against his decision. This is apparently a non-existing ground. This is because, there was no legal provision under which the petitioners could seek downward revision of rent by making a request to the Secretary as against the existing contract between the parties. Not only that, there is no provision in the law providing for an appeal against the decision of the Secretary and therefore, whatever the petitioners had filed as "appeals" before the Municipal Council are not appeals in the eye of law. I do not find any ground either to interfere with the stand taken by the Secretary or issue any direction for consideration of the so-called appeals of the petitioners.
The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed.
