IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22965 of 2011(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- V.V.JAYARAM,AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,'SEETHABHAVAN', MADACKAL P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.H.HAMZA ROWTHER SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, (BSS) KERALA CIRCLE,IMPCS,PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 036. 2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, (NP & DEVELOPMENT),MOBILE SERVICE, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, BSS IMPCS,ALAPPUZHA. R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 22965/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 19/05/2004 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE AMENDED LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 01/02/2007 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 30/06/2007. P4: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR SHIFTING THE MOBILE TOWER. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT INFORMING TO PAY RS.2,90,917/- ALONG WITH FORMAT OF CONSENT. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT INFORMING TO PAY RS.3,30,616/- P7: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER REQUIRING TO RETURN THE AMOUNT. P8: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06/07/2011. P9: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 22965 of 2011 U ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner's deceased wife was the owner of a premises where the respondents installed a mobile tower based on a lease agreement between the parties. During the currency of the lease, petitioner applied for shifting of the tower, whereupon the respondents called upon the petitioner to remit shifting charges of `3,30,616/-. Though the same was remitted, the tower was not shifted. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of the property and eventually the property was also sold. According to the petitioner, the purchaser agreed to continue the lease arrangement and, therefore, the petitioner made an application for refund of the shifting charges deposited by him. That request was rejected by Ext.P8 letter. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition was filed. W.P.(C) No.22965/2011 : 2 : 3. Although various contentions are raised by both sides, it is now the admitted position that the lease agreement itself provides for an arbitration clause for resolution of disputes, if any, between the parties. Now that such an agreed procedure of resolution disputes has been incorporated in the lease agreement, the petitioner will necessarily have to invoke the arbitration clause for getting his grievances redressed. In that view, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of both sides. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/22/09 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge