IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 11822 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.RANJEEV, PROPRIETOR, SOUTH INDIA REFRACTORIES, FUNCTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE FOR CERAMICS, KOLLAM-1. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (S) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CORPORATION LTD. (SIDCO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA CERAMICS LTD., KUNDARA, KOLLAM. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAPEX, KATTAKADA, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R4 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R4 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R4 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R4 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R4 SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR FOR R5 SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R5 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.N.SJDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.7.2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 11822/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 31.7.79. P2. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REVISED PROJECT REPORT. P3. COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DTD.19.8.77. P4. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 11.4.80. P5. COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD.27.11.02 BY R4. P6. COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA ON 3.9.07. P7. COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT DTD.11.1.2003. P8. COPY OF THE RECEIPT VOUCHER ISSUED BY R4. P9. COPY OF THE VOUCHER RECEIPT ISSUED BY R4. P10. COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT BY SBI, TO R4. P11. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.28.5.08 TO R4. P12. COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DTD.30.5.08. P13. COPY OF THE RETURNS DTD.15.2.08. P14. -DO- DTD.15.3.08. P15. -DO- DTD.15.4.08. P16. -DO- DTD.15.5.08. P17. -DO- DTD.16.6.08. P18. -DO- DTD.15.7.08. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.11822 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's father was alloted shed No.A1 in the Functional Industrial Estate for Ceramics, Kollam, for the purpose of establishing and running an SSI unit on lease. The petitioner's father is no more, and, according to the petitioner, the petitioner is continuing the business. The industrial estate in which the shed is situated consists of 7 acres of property. The property was leased originally to 18 units including the petitioner's father. All the other 17 units are stated to have stopped their business and left. Only the petitioner is remaining in the industrial estate. The Government now intends to hand over the property for another development project to the 5th respondent. The petitioner has been, therefore, asked to vacate the premises. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 to 4 not to transfer 7 Acres of land set apart in terms of Ext.P2 anybody in any manner. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 to 4 not to evict the petitioner from the property and the shed as mentioned in Ext.P3. (iii) Issue an interim direction directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the land and the shed as mentioned in Ext.P3.” 2. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner's father till 2 his death, and after his death the petitioner has been continuing the business in the shed in question for years and it would be unjust to throw the petitioner out of the property at this juncture depriving the petitioner the only source of his livelihood. He would also submit that if the Government so agrees, he is prepared to purchase the property in which the shed is situated by paying the market price for the land. 3. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner has no right to continue for ever in the property. The property was leased to the petitioner on specific terms and conditions, which require the petitioner to vacate the land on expiry of the lease period. The lease period has expired long back. As such, the petitioner cannot seek to continue in the shed now. It is further submitted that the land is now required for a public purpose, which would be defeated if the petitioner is allowed to continue in the property, since all the other 17 units have vacated and handed over vacant possession of the property. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The relationship between the petitioner and the Government is governed by lease agreements executed between them, two of which are produced as Exts.P3 and P4. Both are clear lease agreements which contained a condition that on termination of the lease, the lessee shall hand over to the lessor the shed and 3 premises in good condition after rectification at his expense of the damages, if any, caused to the shed during the period of occupation of the shed. Therefore, the lease is not a perpetual one. It is for a specific period. Admittedly, the period of lease has long expired. The petitioner has no right to continue to hold on to the property even after the expiry of the lease period. He is now continuing only by virtue of the interim orders of this Court. That being so, the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 6. If the petitioner wants to purchase the property, it is upto him to approach the Government and it is for the Government to take appropriate decision in the matter taking precaution not to cause any impediment to the public purpose for which it is sought to be now transferred to the 5th respondent. I do not express any opinion on the same. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 4