IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 2078 of 2011(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SHIBU GEORGE, NJARACKKATTU HOUSE, EZHUMATTOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.P.HARIDAS, SMT.SIKKY RAVISHANKAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. KOIPURAM BLOCK PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOIPURAM - 689 531. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J.VARGHESE R2 BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX, SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.2078/2011 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT DTD. 23/11/2005. P2: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.II (1) OF THE KOIPURAM BLOCK PANCHAYAT DTD. 6/12/2010. P3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FROM 16/12/2005 TO 16/07/2009. P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR RS.7,500/- DTD. 28/03/2008. P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR RS.1,250/- DTD. 31/10/2006. P6: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR RS.1,250/- DTD. 19/10/2006. P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.HC/1445/2010 DTD. 05/01/2011. P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 17/01/2011 FILED BY PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.2078 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be the lessee in respect of a building bearing No.547A(New No.1/267) belonging to the second respondent. Ext.P1 is the rental agreement entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent. It would reveal that the monthly rent agreed upon was Rs.1250/-. The building in question is having an area of 1555.43 Sq.ft with electricity, water and parking facilities. Taking into account the said aspects, the second respondent sought for enhancement of the rent and demanded Rs.5000/- as rent. The petitioner expressed his unwillingness to such an enhancement and, that made the second respondent to take a decision to invite fresh tender on expiry of the period of Ext.P1. Accordingly, the second respondent invited open tenders with respect to the aforesaid building as per Ext.R2(c). This Writ Petition has been filed challenging Exts.P3 and P7 and also seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P8 within the time limit and also to direct the respondents to keep Exts.P3 and W.P.(C) NO.2078/2011 2 P7 in abeyance till such consideration. Ext.P3 is a statement of account showing the remittances made by the petitioner towards the rent. Ext.P7 is a notice by which the petitioner was furnished with answers to his queries made under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent in this Writ Petition. It is stated thereunder that the petitioner was put in possession of the building in question for a period of 5 years from 23.11.2005 to 23.11.2010. It is also stated that the building in question is having an area of 1555.43 Sq.ft with electricity, water and parking facilities. It is further stated by the second respondent that approximately, an amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs was spent for the construction of the said building. According to the second respondent, the building in question was not leased out to the petitioner and it was only for rent. It is further stated therein that after the expiry of the period of Ext.P1, the petitioner has submitted Ext.R2(b) representation dated 23.11.2010 before the second respondent requesting to renew the rental arrangement for a further period of 14 years. It is thereafter that Ext.P9 tender notification was issued. There is no restriction as regards the petitioner to participate in the auction to be held pursuant to Ext.P9. W.P.(C) NO.2078/2011 3 3. When the matter came up for admission on 1.2.2011, this Court ordered the respondents to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the said order was modified as per order in I.A.No.3071/2011 dated 25.2.2011 permitting the second respondent to proceed with the tender process initiated as per Ext.R2(c) and permitting the petitioner to participate in the auction. On 2.6.2011, this Court passed an interim order making it clear that the pendency of the Writ Petition would not stand in the way of finalisation of the tender process. However, it was further ordered that the successful bidder should not be put in possession of the building in question without obtaining further orders from this court. Admittedly, the petitioner had quoted an amount of Rs.2000/- towards the monthly rent. Ext.R2(e) would reveal that one Sri.Abraham Samuel who has responded to Ext.R2(c) has quoted a much higher amount viz., Rs.5111/- as monthly rent. In the said circumstances, it is submitted that the second respondent may be permitted to put the successful bidder in possession of the building in question. At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to make a negotiation with the second respondent. Evidently, it is the unwillingness on the part of the petitioner to give rent at an enhanced rate, as demanded by the second W.P.(C) NO.2078/2011 4 respondent, in respect of the building in question that made the second respondent to issue Ext.R2(c) notification. After the publication of the said notification, the petitioner had not chosen to respond to the same whist, preferred to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition. At the same time, in this Writ Petition, the petitioner not chosen to challenge Ext.P9 (sic. Ext.P10), the tender notification which is produced as Ext.R2 (c) by the second respondent. In spite of such circumstances, this Court permitted the petitioner to participate in the tender process without prejudice to his contentions. Ext.R2(e) would reveal that as against the amount quoted by the petitioner as monthly rent viz., Rs.2000/-, one Sri.Abraham Samuel has quoted an amount of Rs.5111/-. However, by virtue of the interim order dated 2.6.2011, the second respondent is not able to put the highest bidder in possession of the building in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the fact that the petitioner has quoted only an amount of Rs.2000/- as against the higher amount quoted by Sri.Abraham Samuel viz., Rs.5111/-, he may be granted an opportunity to negotiate with the second respondent. I am of the considered view that granting such an opportunity at this distance of time, that too, after the auction will reduce the tendering process into a farce. W.P.(C) NO.2078/2011 5 The petitioner has not brought to my attention any provisions of law that confer an absolute right on the petitioner for continued occupation of the shop room. In view of the circumstances as aforesaid, I am not inclined to uphold the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner. When faced with such a situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to challenge the tender proceedings in appropriate proceedings. In case, such a challenge is maintainable in the facts and circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to resort to appropriate remedy, in accordance with law. However, that shall not stand in the way of the second respondent putting the highest bidder in possession of the building in question. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.2078/2011 6 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.2078/2011 7