IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2006 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1928 WP(C).No. 4074 of 2006(I) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. S.S.SANKARANARAYANA REDDIAR, TC 14/1917, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. S.VISWANATHAN, TC 14/1844 (2216), PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ROY ISSAC, TC 14/1897 AND 99, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. T.BALASANKAR, TC 14/1895, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. G.KANNAN, TC 14/2291, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. M.JALAL, TC 14/1903, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, TC 14/2295, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. SASIKUMARAN NAIR, TC 14/1841, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. JOHN JACOB EAPEN, TC 14/1842, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. S.SAJI KUMAR, TC 14/2292, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 11. SANTHOSH KUMAR, TC 14/2215, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. T.RAJAGOPAL, TC 14/1913, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 13. S.SUDHAKARAN, TC 14/1905, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 14. REGHURAJA PILLAI, TC 14/2232, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 15. D.SATHYABHAMA, TC 14/2297, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 16. K.KARUPAIAN, TC 14/2239, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 17. M.SHAJUDHEEN, TC 14/1892 (2261), PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 18. NARESH KAMMANI, TC 14/1915, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 19. SWAMI APPAN, TC 14/1402, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 20. VISALAKSHI AMMA, TC 14/2235, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 21. M.RAJESEKHARAN, TC 14/2233, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 22. P.KESAVAN, TC 14/1898, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 23. O.ABOOBACKER, TC 14/1900, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 24. KUTTAPPAN, TC 14/1901, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 25. A.KAMALUDHEEN, TC 14/1896, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 26. C.P.SHAJAHAN, TC 14/2238, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 27. S.AJITH KUMAR, TC 14/1914, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 28. T.M.P.SUHARA, TC 14/1904, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 29. NAZEERA BEEVI, TC 14/1906, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 30. M.THAJUDHEEN, TC 14/1916, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 31. ABDUL GAFOOR, TC 14/2236, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 32. ISSAC ZACHARIAH, TC 14/2234, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 33. C.PRASANNA, TC 14/1894 (2263), PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 34. R.MURALEEDHARAN, TC 14/2295, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 35. PETER GONZALVES, TC 14/1908, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 36. ABDUL LATHEEF, TC 14/1891, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 37. THOZHILUDAMA ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034. BY ADV. SRI.V.GIRI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 4074 OF 2006 APPENDIX EXHIBIT P1- COPY OF BRIEF NOTE ONO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DTP SCHEME FOR PALAYAM AS ON 2.12.1985. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF COMMUNICATION SENT BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER dated. 12.8.1986. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF FORMAT OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN TRIDA AND SECOND PETITIONER IN 1986. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 26.11.1992 BETWEEN TRIDA AND 16TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 24.8.1994 BETWEEN TRIDA AND 7TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 22.4.1997 BETWEEN TRIDA AND 8TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6(a): COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 31.8.2002 BETWEEN TRIDA AND FIRST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 6.10.2000. EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON THE APPEAL NOS.49657/2000 – 49680/2000. EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 23.12.2000. EXHIBIT P10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF DATED 29.6.2001 ALONG WITH DECREE AND COMPROMISE PETITION. EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICTING PRESENT STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION OF C BLOCK. EXHIBIT P12: COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE THOZHILUDAMA ASSOCIATION ALONG WITH A STATEMENT SHOWING DETAILS OF ALLOTMENT OF SPACE TO VARIOUS PERSONS DATED 10.10.2005. EXHIBIT P13: COPY OF THE NOTICE SIMILAR TO EXHIBIT P11 GIVING DETAILS OF ALLOTMENT TO FIRST PETITIONER DATED 7.10.2005. EXHIBIT P14: COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF 37TH PETITIONER IN REPLOY TO EXHIBIT P11. EXHIBIT P15: COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 21.10.2005 TO EXHIBIT P12. EXHIBIT P16: COPY OF COMMUNICATION SENT BY FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 22.12.2005 STATED TO BE MINUTES OF MEETING. EXHIBIT P17: COPY OF STATEMENT SENT BY THE SECRETARY REQUESTING ALLOTTEES W.P.(C).No. 4074/06 TO FILL UP THE DETAILS ALONG WITH THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY 37TH PETITIONER DATED 22.12.2005. EXHIBIT P18: COPY OF COMMUNICATION SENT BY FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 17.1.2006 STATED TO BE MINUTES OF MEETING. EXHIBIT P19: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P20: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P21: COPY OF THE NOTICE ADDRESSED TO THE PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF THIRD petitioner BUT RECEIVED BY THIRD PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P22: COPY OF THE NOTICE ADDRESSED TO THE PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF FOURTH PETITIONER BUT RECEIVED BY FOURTH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P23: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE FIFTH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P24: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE SIXTH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P25: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY SEVENTH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P26: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY EITHER PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P27: COPY OF NOTICE ADDRESSED TO PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF NINTH PETITIONER BUT RECEIVED BY NINTH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P28: COPY OF NOTICE ADDRESSED TO PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF TENTH PETITIOINER BUT RECEIVED BY TENTH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. \ EXHIBIT P29: COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY ELEVENTH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P30: COPY OF NOTICE ADDRESSED TO PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF TWELTH PETITIONER BUT RECEIVED BY TWELTH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P31: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY THIRTEENTH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006 IN RESPECT OF PREMISES NO.14/1905. EXHIBIT P32: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY THIRTEENTH PETITIONER DATED 27.1.2006 IN RESPECET OF PREMISES NO.14/1984. EXHIBIT P33: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY FOURTEENTH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006 IN RESPECT OF PREMISES NO.14/2232. EXHIBIT P34: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY FOURTEENTH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006 IN RESPECT OF PREMISES NO.14/2232-33. EXHIBIT P35: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY FIFTEENTH PETITIONER DATED 24/1/2006. EXHIBIT P36: COPY OF NOTICE REECEIVED BY 16TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P37: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 17TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. W.P.(C).No. 4074/06 EXHIBIT P38: COPY OF NOTICE ADDRESSED TO THE PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF 18TH PETITIONER BUT RECEIVED BY 18TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P39: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 19TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P40: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 20TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P41: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 21ST PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P42: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 22ND PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P43: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 23RD PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P44: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 24TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P45: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 25TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P46: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 26TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P47: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 27TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P48: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BYT 28TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P49: COPY OF NOTICE ADDRESSED TO PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF 29TH PETITIONER BUT RECEIVED BY 29TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P50: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 30TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P51: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 31ST PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P52: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 32ND PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P53: COPY OF NOTICE ADDRESSED TO PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF 33RD PETITIONER BUT RECEIVED BY THE 33RD PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P54: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 34TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P55: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BYT 35TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P56: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 36TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006. EXHIBIT P57: COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY 36TH PETITIONER DATED 24.1.2006 IN RESPECT OF SHOP NO.14/2259 ADDRESSED TO HIS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST. EXHIBIT P58: COPY OF STATEMENT GIVING DETAILS OF ALLOTMENT TO VARIOUS PETITIONERS INCLUDING PRESENT AND PROPOSED RENT AND SECURITY DEPOSIT. EXHIBIT P59: COPY OF PWD NORMS. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.4074 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2006 JUDGMENT More than two decades ago, in the year 1986, the Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority ('TRIDA', for short) made a proposal to acquire certain buildings situated by the side of the M.G.Road in the Capital City of the State. The purpose was to widen the road. This became inevitable to accommodate the rampant vehicular traffic in the City. For the implementation of the said project of TRIDA called “Capital Region Development”, Government acquired the land, including certain buildings thereon during 1986 and 1992. Compensation was also paid to the land owners. 2. But, the tenants who are occupying those buildings refused to move out. Negotiations and meetings were held at different levels during different periods. Though the tenants could be easily dispossessed of the buildings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, it was however, decided that they could be allowed to continue occupation of the same buildings, under certain terms and conditions, taking into consideration the request made by the tenants. According to TRIDA, they were not under any legal obligation to do so, but W.P.(C).No. 4074/06 2 such a step was taken purely based on “humanitarian consideration”. 3. Accordingly, the tenants were treated as tenants under TRIDA subject to certain terms and conditions. Agreements were also executed between the tenants and TRIDA. One of such agreements is Exhibit P3. TRIDA decided that the tenants could continue occupation of the respective buildings, until they are rehabilitated in the building to be newly constructed by TRIDA. 4. But after execution of such agreements also, some disputes arose between the parties and negotiations were again held. As a result, parties came to terms again and certain settlements were arrived at between TRIDA and the tenants at a meeting held on 6.10.200. The terms and conditions of one of such settlements, admittedly, find a place in Exhibit P7. A perusal of Exhibit P7 shows that it is styled as 'minutes' of the meeting held by TRIDA on 6.10.2000. It is signed by certain land owners, tenants, office bearers of TRIDA and certain others who took part in the meeting. Very important decisions were taken on the issue and those were incorporated in Exhibit P7. 5. As per the terms in Exhibit P7, both parties agreed that they would act in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the earlier agreements like Exhibit P3. It was also decided that rehabilitation was to be effected, subject to the terms and conditions contained in Exhibit P7. Special reference was made by petitioners to Clause 14 of Exhibit P7 which stipulates that when W.P.(C).No. 4074/06 3 the tenants are evicted and rehabilitated thereafter in the newly constructed building, the rooms were to be either rented out or sold to the tenants on 'no profit no loss' basis, subject to the earlier agreements like Exhibit P3. It is also agreed upon by TRIDA that while fixing rent for the new building, PWD norms in this respect will be taken into account. The above clause is the trump card of the petitioners which is held against TRIDA. This is, essentially, the basis for this Writ Petition also. 6. According to petitioners, they are entitled, in law and on facts, to get directions from this court against TRIDA compelling it to act in accordance with clause No.14 in Exhibit P7. They filed this Writ Petition mainly for this purpose, though the reliefs are molded differently. Petitioners' case is that TRIDA acted totally in contravention of the terms contained in Exhibit P7 and Exhibit P3 agreement and TRIDA proposed to collect huge security deposits and rent from the tenants. TRIDA also issued notices to the tenants calling upon them to pay exorbitant security deposits and rent which are unbearable to them. Those notices are Exhibits P19 to P57. 7. Petitioners raised a plea that the demand made in Exhibit P19 to P57 are not only contrary to the understanding and the agreement entered into by the parties as per Exhibit P7, but the demand made is in violation of the terms in the earlier agreements like Exhibit P3. Therefore, this writ petition is filed W.P.(C).No. 4074/06 4 seeking writ of certiorari to quash Exhibits P19 to P57, in so far as those make demand for deposit of exorbitant security deposits and also huge rent. 8. Based on the particulars in Exhibits P19 to P57, petitioners prepared a statement as Exhibit P58, for ready reference. The details of the security deposits, existing rent, proposed rent, name of tenants, existing space of the room, the space allotted etc. are shown in Exhibit P58. A mere glance of Exhibit P58, according to petitioners, will reveal that the demand made is too high, it is submitted. Hence, petitioners seek to quash Exhibit P19 to Exhibit P57 with respect to the demand made regarding security deposits and rent. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for TRIDA, at the very outset submitted that this petition itself is not maintainable, since it relates to a dispute regarding rate of rent and security deposit which are payable by petitioners as tenants. It also involves enforcement of a contract. Hence it was strenuously contended that this court cannot resolve the factual disputes between the parties on this issue and this court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon these type of matters under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for petitioners resisted this contention and vehemently argued that as per the settled legal position, even in contractual matters, this court has every power to interfere, under certain circumstances, especially when a State Authority like TRIDA acts like private landlords. W.P.(C).No. 4074/06 5 10. There is also no absolute bar for consideration of disputed facts in appropriate cases, and the action of a State Authority can be subjected to judicial review, it was strongly contended. Several decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court were cited on either side in support of the rival contentions. But, on the facts of this case, it may not be necessary for me to sit in judgment over any factual disputes and resolve the same for a disposal of this petition. It also may not be necessary to issue any direction for enforcement of any contract, either. This case can be decided on admitted facts themselves. I shall state my reasons: 11. Admittedly, TRIDA is an authority coming under Article 12 of the Constitution and it is bound by Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also admitted that TRIDA decided to act in accordance with the terms and conditions in Exhibit P3 and Exhibit P7. Genuineness of both Exhibit P3 and Exhibit P7 is also not under dispute. Exhibit P7 is the “minutes” of the meeting of TRIDA held on 6.10.2002 and Exhibit P3 is an agreement executed by TRIDA and one of the petitioners. TRIDA admittedly executed similar agreements with other tenants also. 12. Exhibit P7 reveals that certain shop keepers, tenants and also office bearers of TRIDA had taken part in the meeting held on 6.10.2000. Exhibit P7 also shows the circumstances under which the document came into existence. W.P.(C).No. 4074/06 6 It is stated in explicit terms in Exhibit P7 that when the rent and security deposits proposed by TRIDA were found to be “unbearable and unacceptable” to the traders and when the traders found it unable to meet even the expenses for shifting and such traders were in majority, it was decided in the meeting that a 'reasonable stand' was to be taken by TRIDA in the matter. TRIDA in its 'minutes' dated 6.10.2000, recorded in honesty, the above details and narrated its decisions in clear and unambiguous terms. 13.It is also seen from Exhibit P7 that when TRIDA decided to take a “reasonable stand”, the traders also agreed to co-operate in the implement of the proposed project of TRIDA. It is specifically stated in clause 14 of Exhibit P7 that when tenants are evicted and rehabilitated in the building which is to be newly constructed by TRIDA, the rooms therein will be “rented out” or “sold” to the tenants on “no profit no loss” basis, subject to earlier agreement (one of such agreements is Exhibit P3). It is also stated therein that when rent is fixed, PWD norms will be taken into account. Nobody can criticize these decisions to be arbitrary or unfair. If the TRIDA stands by the above terms, none can challenge its actions. 14. Since Exhibit P7 refers to agreements like Exhibit P3, and it was decided to act subject to such agreements, it is necessary to advert to the terms in Exhibit P3 also. A reading of Exhibit P3, particularly clause No.4 thereon W.P.(C).No. 4074/06 7 shows that what was insisted upon was payment of security deposit equivalent to three months' rent only. A joint reading of clause 14 of Exhibit P7 and clause 4 of Exhibit P3 would establish that the original demand made by TRIDA was only for three months' rent as security deposit and nothing more. 15. A plain reading of Exhibit P7 itself reveals that TRIDA had decided to act in a just and fair manner. After reading Exhibit P7, TRIDA's actions cannot be criticized as arbitrary or unfair. TRIDA acted only the way a state authority is expected to act, in a fact situation like this and the intentions of TRIDA are quite evident from the contents of Exhibit P7. Whether the said document can be treated as an 'agreement', 'minutes' or not, it does contain the 'decisions' taken by TRIDA on an important issue which involves the future of several traders, consequent to a state action. The nomenclature of the document, therefore, does not make any difference. It does disclose the intentions of TRIDA, as to how it decided to act and deal with the case of petty traders, who were in majority. 16. Learned counsel for petitioners also relied upon Exhibits P8 and P9 to fortify the petitioners' contentions that TRIDA acted subsequently also, in accordance with Exhibit P7. It was argued that the above documents will further confirm that TRIDA stood by the terms in Exhibit P7. Exhibit P8 is an order dated 7.2.2001 passed in an appeal filed under Section 10 of the Kerala W.P.(C).No. 4074/06 8 Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968. The appeal was filed by tenants when TRIDA initiated action against them to evict them and orders were passed under Section 5(1) of the said Act. The aggrieved tenants filed the appeals and in the appeals there was a compromise. A reading of the order in the appeal (Exhibit P8) will reveal that even in those proceedings before the District Collector, TRIDA expressed its intentions to act in terms of Exhibit P7. Exhibit P9 order also refers to Exhibit P7. 17. It was also pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners that TRIDA acted upon the terms of Exhibit P7 in a suit also, which was filed by certain tenants, including some of the petitioners against TRIDA. A compromise was filed by the parties therein and it was disposed of on terms of the compromise. The judgment and the compromise are marked as Exhibit P10 series. Learned counsel for petitioners read out each of the terms in Exhibit P10 compromise and pointed out that all those terms in Exhibit P10 are replica of Exhibit P7. Clause 14 in Exhibit P7 was incorporated as such in Exhibit P10 as clause No.14 . In the above circumstances, it was vehemently contended that TRIDA cannot now retract from the earlier stand contained in Exhibit P7 and the conditions on which rehabilitation was proposed. The TRIDA being a State authority, no doubt, is bound to act atleast by it own decisions as reflected in Exhibit P7. W.P.(C).No. 4074/06 9 18. As pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners , TRIDA intended to act in accordance with the stipulations in Exhibit P7, as evidenced by Exhibits P8, P9 and P10. Therefore, the contention is that TRIDA cannot now take a different stand and insist for payment of huge security deposit, more than what was demanded by TRIDA, as per Exhibit P3 read with Exhibit P7. But, TRIDA now exhibits a profit-making attitude like a private individual, by insisting upon huge amount as security deposit or rent, is the grievance. The petitioners therefore seek this Court's interference. 19. Learned Standing Counsel for TRIDA would argue that what was agreed upon by the parties as per Exhibit P7 was only with respect to the temporary rehabilitation and not permanent rehabilitation and hence the terms in Exhibit P3 have to be understood to apply only to temporary rehabilitation. So, petitioners cannot raise contention that they need pay only three months' rent. They cannot also place reliance upon Exhibit P7 to resist eviction for permanent rehabilitation, is the contention raised by TRIDA. Even on a plain reading of Exhibit P7, particularly clause 14 it cannot, under any stretch of imagination, be said that the said clause referred to temporary rehabilitation and not permanent rehabilitation. Such a contention cannot be upheld, since specific reference is made therein regarding “permanent rehabilitation”. 20. Learned Standing Counsel for TRIDA further argued that TRIDA W.P.(C).No. 4074/06 10 was never acting in any manner as alleged by the petitioners. Its conduct will prove otherwise. TRIDA has absolutely no obligation to suggest a rehabilitation and rehabilitation proposals were made on attractive terms and conditions, it was argued by learned Standing Counsel for TRIDA. But tenants were adamant in not moving out to the building which is now constructed. The acquisition proceedings which was initiated as early as in 1986 has been stalled because of the conduct of the traders and it adversely affects public interest, it was strongly contended. The acquisition was made for a public purpose but the intention of the petitioners is only to protract the matter some how or other and make a profit out of the delay, by getting buildings of their choice at an attractive locality, by paying only a meagre amount, it is argued. 21. It is also pointed out that huge amount was spent by TRIDA, even loans were raised for constructing buildings, and it will not be feasible for TRIDA to give the buildings on rent or sell them for nominal price, as suggested by the petitioners. Therefore, TRIDA is constrained to insist for payment of the amounts which are mentioned in Exhibits P19 to P57, which are only the bare minimum. It was also submitted that these amounts were fixed, after consultation and detailed discussions with the concerned tenants. Apart from all these, Exhibits P16 and P18 will show that subsequent meetings were also held after the decision taken as per Exhibit P7 and it was proposed to W.P.(C).No. 4074/06 11 reduce the proposed rent and security deposit, which was done in the interest of the tenants themselves. Therefore, the argument is that the petitioners cannot insist that TRIDA should act in accordance with Exhibit P7 or Exhibit P3. 22. It is also argued that Exhibits P16 and P18 would reflect the consensus of the parties and hence the tenants are bound by the terms contained in Exhibits P16 and P18. Exhibit P18 shows that the rate of rent etc. were proposed to be reduced. The manner in which security deposit and also the rent were to be reckoned was considered at length and decisions were taken, as recorded in Exhibit P18 and also Exhibit P16. It is contended that the petitioners cannot now travel beyond the terms and conditions in these two documents. Learned counsel for petitioners replied that there were no agreements between the parties, as submitted by the opposite side as per Exhibits P16 or Exhibit P18. He maintained the stand that the petitioners had not agreed to act in accordance with any decisions allegedly taken as per Exhibits P16 or P18. Except for the fact that some of the petitioners had taken part in those meetings, the decisions incorporated in Exhibits P16 and P18, have no binding force on the petitioners, is the argument. 23. A perusal of Exhibits P16 and P18 would show that those are “minutes” of the meetings held on 22.12.2005 and 17.1.2006. The Chairman, Secretary, Local Administration and also TRIDA, Chief Engineer etc. had taken W.P.(C).No. 4074/06 12 part in the meeting. It is also seen that some of the petitioners were also present in the meeting. It appears that certain decisions were taken on these days. But in Exhibit P18, it is mentioned that the terms in Exhibit P18 will come into force only when the