IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 11946 of 2001(V) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHIBU V.KORAH, S/O. KORAH, ARINJUKALLUMKAL, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN RESPONDENTS: ------------- ARPUKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, ARPUKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VILLOONNI.P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO. 11946/2001 ORDER ON CMP NO.19046/2001 IN O.P.NO. 11946/2001 DISMISSED. 14/03/2008 SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.7585/92 DATED 31/03/1992. P1(a) : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 4296/1992. P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13/10/2000. P3 : COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 30/10/2000. P4 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 27/11/2000. P5 : COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16/12/2000. P6 : COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 31/01/2001. P7 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PANCHAYAT AND THE PETITIONER DATED 12/09/1990. P7(a) : COP7Y OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AUCTION DATED 04/06/1990. P8 : COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16/02/2001 BY THE PETITIONER. P9 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21/03/2001. P10 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATED NIL. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------- O.P. No. 11946 of 2001 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 14th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging Exts.P4, P6 & P9 demands of arrears of rent and interest by the respondent Panchayat towards lease rentals payable for the building leased by the petitioner from the Panchayat under Ext.P7 agreement. The building comprising of 15 double rooms was taken on lease by petitioner vide Ext.P7 agreement for the period commencing from 12/09/1990 to 31/03/1992. The agreed rate of rent was Rs.11,401/- per month during the period of lease. However, on expiry of the lease period, the Panchayat demanded 7% increase annually, which was challenged by the petitioner immediately by filing O.P.No.4296/92. This Court passed an interim order vide Ext.P1 directing the petitioner to pay rent with increase @ 5% annually. The interim order continued till disposal of the original petition vide Ext.P1(a) judgment. It is seen from Ext.P1(a) that this Court based on Government Orders, and the Government Circulars and the orders issued by the Deputy Director of Panchayat held that the demand of increase of rent @ 7% by the Panchayat was not tenable and that it O.P.NO. 11946/2001 -2- should be limited to 5%. Even though, petitioner claims limitation against recovery, I do not think no such limitation as claimed is maintainable because the original petition was pending from 1992 to 1997. During the period of pendency of the original petition, there was an interim order directing payment of rent with 5% increase and even under Ext.P1(a) judgment 5% increase was approved by this Court as against 7% demanded by the Panchayat. It is seen from the computation given in the counter affidavit that the arrear amount demanded from the petitioner is only the agreed rate of rent with 5% annual increase as approved by this Court vide Ext.P1(a) judgment and the demand is only up to the date of petitioner vacating the building. Interest demanded for belated payment is at 18%. However, the interest demanded @ 18% is not tenable because Ext.P7 agreement provides for payment of interest only at 12% for belated payment. In the circumstances, the original petition is partly allowed reducing the demand of interest from 18% to 12% for the period of delay in payment, but by upholding the demand of lease rental arrears with 5% increase every year. Respondent is directed to issue revised statement with reduced rate of interest @ 12% for belated payment after reckoning O.P.NO. 11946/2001 -3- payment already made by petitioner, for the petitioner to clear the arrears. If balance payment is not made within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, recovery can be continued. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg