IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3140 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SARALA KUMARY, W/O. RAGHUNATHAN, PUTHENVILA THEKATHIL, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- SASTHAMCOTTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.3140/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 27.7.2007. EXT.P2: THE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.7.2008 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: THE COPY OF REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HER ADVOCATE DATED 26.7.2008. EXT.P3(a): THE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT. EXT.P3(b): THE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGE CARD. EXT.P4: THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.7.2008. EXT.P5: THE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 12.1.2009 VIDE NO.C3-88/07. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 3140 OF 2009 (W) ===================== Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the tenant of Room No.6 of a shopping complex belonging to the respondent Panchayat. Ext.P1 is the rent deed in favour of the petitioner and the lease period is for the period from 1/6/07 to 31/3/2010. It is stated that petitioner defaulted in payment of the rental and the Panchayat issued Ext.P2 notice informing her that the Panchayat will be free to initiate action for cancellation of the lease. 2. According to the petitioner, immediately thereafter, on 31/7/2008, she surrendered the building and remitted the arrears that were due till then. It is also stated that immediately thereafter she issued Ext.P4 letter requesting the Panchayat to refund the security deposit after appropriating any amount that may be due from her. Petitioner submits that in pursuance to all the above, Panchayat published re auction notice on 11/8/08 and that the building in question was re auctioned on 18/8/2008 and that in the re auction, there was no bidders. 3. It is her case that although she had surrendered the WPC 3140/09 :2 : building as early as on 31/7/2008 and the Panchayat took steps for re auctioning the building, the Panchayat issued Ext.P5 notice calling upon the petitioner to remit the arrears for the period subsequent to 31/7/2008. It is on receipt of Ext.P5, this writ petition was filed. 4. According to the petitioner, she having surrendered the building as early as on 31/7/2008 and the Panchayat having resumed possession and took steps for re auctioning the premises, she should not be saddled with the liability to pay the rental for the period subsequent to 31/7/2008. 5. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat, what they say is that the petitioner remitted the rental due only till 31/7/2008 and that the building was not surrendered as claimed by her. It is stated that even as on date, the petitioner still retains the possession of the building, and therefore, she is liable to pay the rental due under Ext.P1. 6. From the above, therefore, it can be seen that the real dispute is as to whether petitioner prematurely surrendered the premises to the Panchayat as the petitioner contends. The Panchayat denies this allegation and submits that even today, the WPC 3140/09 :3 : key is retained by the petitioner. Such a factual dispute cannot be resolved in a writ petition and can be resolved only in a proceedings where both parties can adduce evidence in support of the respective contentions. In my view, therefore, the remedy of the petitioner lies before the Civil Court, and hence, leaving open all her contentions, I dismiss this writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp