IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 21616 of 2006(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.M. ALI, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. LATE MR.MAKKARUKUTTY, LICENSEE OF ROOM NO.3 UNDER THE ERNAKULAM NORTH OVER BRIDGE SHOPPING COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018 (RESIDING AT KANIYAMKUDY HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM, KAIPRAKUNNU P.O., ALUVA TALUK IN ERNAKULAM DIST.) BY ADV. SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN SRI.V.S.AFSAL KHAN SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR SRI.V.M.MICHAEL SRI.C.K.SASI SRI.M.RAJEEV SMT.JISHAMOL CLEETUS SMT.R.DYANA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, HEAD OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, TAXATION STANDING COMMITTEE, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 3. THE REVENUE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATON OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC.COCHIN CORPN. FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.21616/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.G.O.R-3/1265/94 DT.19.7.2006 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DEMANDING TO PAY RS.86,640/- FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CHALLAN FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.880/- FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY AND MARCH 1995. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.31.8.1995 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO.14107/1995-D. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE OFFICIAL RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF ARREARS BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION NO.NIL DT.2.8.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 21616 OF 2006-W ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner was a licensee of a shop room in the shopping complex at North Over-bridge of Kochi Corporation. The term of the licence expired on 31.3.1996. It was, thereafter, never renewed. The petitioner submits, he was paying the rent promptly and finally he applied for renewal of the licence with retrospective effect from 1.4.1996, by submitting an application on 18.05.2006. The said application was allowed by the Corporation, by Ext.P1 proceedings dated 19.7.2006. The licence was renewed from 1.4.1996 . But, the Corporation imposed a condition that the petitioner should pay the rent with an increase of 15% per year from 1.4.1996 to 31.3.2004. Thereafter, he should pay the rent with an enhancement of 5% per year from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2007. The petitioner was called upon to remit the entire arrears within seven days. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P1, this Writ Petition was filed. According to the petitioner, there cannot be any enhancement of rent with retrospective effect. It can only be WPC 21616/06 2 prospective. He is willing to pay the revised rent from the date of Ext.P1, it is submitted. 2. The Corporation has filed a counter affidavit. According to it, the petitioner never moved for renewal of the licence after 1.4.1996. He was occupying the shop room unauthorisedly. The rent was being paid only occasionally. Substantial amounts were in arrears. Therefore, the Corporation took steps to evict him. When notice to vacate from the premises was served on the petitioner, he cleared the entire arrears and submitted an application on 18.5.2006, praying to renew the licence from 1.4.1996. In the above background Ext.P1 was issued. The Corporation further submits, if the petitioner does not want to pay the revised rent with retrospective effect, he may forthwith vacate the premises. 3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The Corporation being the owner of the building and also holding the same in trust for the public, it should be conceded freedom to impose conditions for renewal of licence. The dealings of the Corporation with the petitioner is a commercial transaction. In such matters, the Corporation has to be WPC 21616/06 3 guided by consideration of safeguarding public money and public interest. The condition imposed by the Corporation may be harsh from the view point of the petitioner. But, he cannot insist that the room should be let out to him subject to the conditions acceptable to him. If the petitioner does not want the room on the terms offered by the Corporation, he may vacate the same. I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P1 on the ground that the Corporation is demanding enhancement of licence fee with retrospective effect. Further, the Corporation is not compelling the petitioner to take the room on such terms. In view of the above position, the challenge against Ext.P1 fails. If the petitioner does not want to continue by paying the arrears demanded as per Ext.P1, he may vacate the room with effect from 30.9.2008. In that event he need pay only the revised rent from July, 2006 to September, 2008. He need not pay the arrears of rent. But, if the petitioner wants to continue beyond the above said date and get the licence renewed in WPC 21616/06 4 his favour, he must comply with the conditions imposed in Ext.P1. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. 5th September, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/