IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 434 of 2007(B) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC.COCHIN CORPN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M. MATHAI, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, THALAYAZHAM P.O., VAIKOM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 434/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.8.8.95. P2. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT. P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.22.3.03. P4. COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR REFUND DTD.11.6.04. P5. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.9.8.04. P6. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.22.12.04. P7. COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD.17.6.05. P8. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE OMBUDSMAN DTD.17.8.06. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R1. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.16.4.05. R1A. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.15.3.02. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 434 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The Corporation of Kochi is challenging Ext.P8 order of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, in O.P.No.1087/ 2004. The said order reads thus: “Heard both sides. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has taken up the Room No.12 or (sic) Vyttila Shopping Complex on a monthly rent of Rs. 3121/-. On termination of the lease, he has vacated the shop room on 31.5.2003. At the time of lease, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.71,726/- as Security Deposit. When the lease is terminated and the petitioner has vacated the room, the Security deposit has to be returned to the petitioner unconditionally. The Corporation has no case that any arrears of rent are due from the petitioner. The contention of the Corporation is that from 15.7.2004, the rent of shop rooms has been enhanced retrospectively from 30.8.1998. The Corporation states that they are entitled to deduct the amount from the Security deposit at revised rate of rent. This is quite illegal. The petitioner was the tenant of the Corporation and the relationship between the petitioner and the Corporation is that of the tenant and the Land Lord and their relations are controlled and regulated under the Lease Agreement and also the general principle of law relating to land lord and tenant. This relationship is ceased when the lease agreement is terminated and the tenant is vacated the premises. In this case, even if Corporation has enhanced the rent retrospectively, the petitioner is not liable to pay because lease ceased to exist on the date of the revision on 15.7.2004. Therefore, the contention of the Corporation that they are entitled to deduct the enhanced rate from the Security deposit made by the petitioner is wrong. Therefore, any reduction of money of the petitioner after 31.5.2003 by the Corporation is illegal and they are liable to pay compensation by way of interest. Therefore, I direct the Corporation to refund the amount of Rs. 71,726/- with interest @ 10% per annum from 01.6.2003 till payment. With these directions, the matter is closed.” w.p.c.434/07 2 I do not find anything wrong with the said order. Admittedly, the lease was terminated and the 1st respondent vacated the shop room as early as on 31.5.2003. Admittedly, an amount of ` 71,726/- deposited by the 1st respondent as security deposit is lying with the Corporation. The only contention of the Corporation is that there was a revision of the rent retrospectively from 15.7.2004. Admittedly, that revision was long after the 1st respondent ceased to be a lessee of the Corporation. If that be so, that retrospective enhancement of rent cannot be made applicable to the 1st respondent, who was not a lessee of the Corporation at the time of enhancement of the rent retrospectively. Insofar as the security deposit is with the Corporation, on cessation of the landlord-tenant relationship, they are bound to refund the security deposit to the 1st respondent. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P8 order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge