IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33130 of 2007(R) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- THE NORTH MALABAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY & MARKETING SOCIETY LTD., REG.NO.F.1003, SILK STREET, KOZHIKODE-673 032, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SUBRAMANIAN KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA, KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673 121. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUNITHA SUKUMAR FOR R1 ADVS. MR.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33130 of 2007(R) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 15.6.2005 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 14.8.2006 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.6.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 11.7.2007 SENT BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.5.2005 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1-7 (LAND/NVS (HR)/2004-05/4258 DATED 4.10.2004 OF THE NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD DISTRICT. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 33130 of 2007 ................................................. Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to pay arrears of rent in respect of a building leased by the petitioner to the respondents. In the counter affidavit, the Government submits that the building has been renovated by the respondents by spending more than Rs.26 lakhs and therefore after the expiry of the lease, the petitioner would be getting new building which would be worth more than Rs.26 lakhs. As such there is no justification in the petitioner now demanding arrears of rent is the contention raised. I am of opinion that these are of matters which the petitioner has to take up appropriately in a suit for recovery of rent. That being so, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs