IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22851 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. SUNIL JOHN, TOWER CAFE, ROOM NOS.52 & 53, REVENUE TOWER, CHANGANACHERRY RESIDING AT KOYIPPALLI, VAZHAPPALLI EAST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. K.K.JOSEPH, SILVER STAR AUTHO CONSULTANCY, ROOM NO.37, REVENUE TOWER, CHANGANACHERRY, RESIDING AT KALAPPURACKAL VEEDU, PUZHUVATHU PERUNNA, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, KOTTAYAM DIVISION, KANJIKKUZHY, KOTTAYAM. BY SHRI.JAYASANKAR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.22851 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are licensees of shop rooms in the Revenue Tower, Changanacherry, which were alloted to them by the Kerala State Housing Board, after executing separate lease deeds. The period of lease has already expired, but the petitioners were allowed to continue. For renewal of the lease the Housing Board is putting forward certain conditions, which according to the petitioners, are discriminatory in so far as from the subsequent allottees the Housing Board is not realising the exorbitant security deposit, which the Housing Board is insisting that the petitioners should pay. The answer of the Housing Board is that the petitioners competed with other applicants for allotment of these rooms and the petitioners being the highest bidders, they were allotted the shop rooms as per a specific agreement, as per which, they were required to pay a stipulated amount as security deposit. According to the Hosing Board, if they want renewal of the very same agreement, the same can be only on the basis of the security deposit agreed to by them as per the original lease agreement. If they want to get the benefit of the terms applicable to the later allottees, the petitioners will w.p.c.22851/08 2 have to first surrender the shop rooms and apply afresh like the subsequent lessees. 2. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the rival contentions at this stage in so far as the petitioners have already filed Exts.P9 and P10 representations before the 2nd respondent which are pending. The petitioners also now confine their prayer for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P9 and P10. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Housing Board would submit that it would be more appropriate that the 1st respondent considers the same. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P9 and P10 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment . If upto date arrears of rent are paid, the petitioners shall not be evicted from the shop rooms in question in the meanwhile. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.22851/08 3