IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37715 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- N.K.RATNAKUMARI, FLAT. NO.8, WESTEND APARTMENTS, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.BENZIR SRI.G.G.MANOJ SRI.JAICE JACOB RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR. BY ADV.SHRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SC FOR DEVASWOM BOARD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.37715 of 2009-H. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010. O R D E R Gopinathan, J. Late V.M.Satheesan, the husband of the writ petitioner, took a building (Room No.4) belonging to the first respondent on rent as early as 10.7.1991 as per Ext.P1 order/proceedings of the first respondent for a period of five years. On expiry the lease was renewed and continued so periodically. On 12.9.2005 Satheesan passed away. Writ petitioner, the widow had been continuing occupation and was allegedly doing business. While so, the period of lease so renewed by the late husband of the writ petitioner expired. On 2.2.2008, the writ petitioner applied to the respondents to renew the lease in favour of the writ petitioner. Writ petitioner was called for a discussion. Thereupon, by Ext.P4 order dated 18.3.2008 the lease was renewed in favour of the writ petitioner. The rent was WP(C).No.37715/2009-H. -: 2 :- enhanced to Rs.5,000/- per month with stipulation for periodical renewal. The writ petitioner was directed to remit an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards advance and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards security deposit and to remit another Rs.1,50,000/- which the writ petitioner volunteered to donate to the temple development fund. Seeking an order to quash Ext.P4 on plea that the terms and conditions in Ext.P4 are illegal and arbitrary, this writ petition was filed. The following are reliefs sought for:- 1. To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P4 and quash the same to the extent which stipulates fresh conditions for the renewal of lease agreement. 2. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to renew the lease agreement in respect of Room No.4 in Vyttila Shop Building in favour of the petitioner on existing terms. 2) It is not disputed that the respondents are the owners of the building which was originally let out to the husband of the writ petitioner. According to the writ petitioner, the amount to be deposited as per Ext.P4 is WP(C).No.37715/2009-H. -: 3 :- arbitrary and illegal. She had made Ext.P5 representation before the first respondent for a reconsideration. But, the first respondent has not so far taken a decision on it. She had also filed Ext.P8 complaint before the Ombudsman for Travancore-Cochin Devaswom Board. By Ext.P9 the Ombudsman rejected Ext.P8. Ext.P9 would show that while rejecting Ext.P8, the Ombudsman had taken note that when the lease deed in respect of an adjacent room let out to one T.P.Joseph was renewed, it was done on fresh terms and conditions identical to those in Ext.P4. Petitioner has no case that the reason stated by the Ombudsman is not correct. If that be so, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner was discriminated. On the other hand, it is to be found that the petitioner was equally treated. That being so, there is no room for grievance at all. 3) It is not disputed that while letting out an immovable property, the lesser has the right to impose such terms and conditions regarding the price, premium or anything payable in respect of the subject matter of the WP(C).No.37715/2009-H. -: 4 :- lease. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act reads: “105. Lease defined:- A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. Lessor, lessee, premium and rent defined:- The transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee, the price is called the premium, and the money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called the rent.” 4) It is not disputed that the condition imposed in Ext.P4 is within the ambit of Sec.105 of the Transfer of Property Act. So, it could not be held that the respondents had exceeded their right or that the terms and conditions contained in Ext.P4 are any way arbitrary, illegal or contrary to statutory provisions. 5) It is also pertinent to note that the writ petitioner is silent as to the plinth area of the room which was let out to the writ petitioner. The prevailing rate of rent, the WP(C).No.37715/2009-H. -: 5 :- prevailing practice regarding the premium or money payable in respect of the identical building, is also not born out by the pleadings. In the above circumstances, we find that it could not be concluded that what was demanded by the respondents for renewing the lease transaction is anything arbitrary, unconscionable, illegal or against the custom or practice followed. It is also pertinent to note Ext.P4 would show that the writ petitioner had volunteered to donate Rs.1,50,000/- towards the temple development fund. The writ petitioner having volunteered to make donation to the temple development fund, while requesting for renewal of the lease, it is not open to her to challenge the same after getting an order of renewal. Though it is stated that the terms and conditions in Ext.P4 are arbitrary and illegal, it is not mentioned as to why or for what reason, the terms and conditions are stated to be arbitrary and illegal. Pleadings are very vague and not supported by specific reasonings. With such pleadings, we are afraid, we can exercise the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is WP(C).No.37715/2009-H. -: 6 :- devoid of any merit and lacks bonafides. As per the pleadings, Ext.P4 is not vitiated by any illegality or arbitrariness. Therefore, it requires no interference in exercise of the powers conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE . P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-