GENFOCUS INFOTECH I LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 is Ext.P32 order passed by the District Collector interfering with Ext.P30 order passed by the Accommodation Controller under Section 13 of Act 2 of 1965. It is conceded that the status of the petitioner/company is that of a tenant and that its landlord in respect of the premises in question is the third respondent, another company M/s Infopark Kerala. It is also evident that the contract rent payable by the petitioner to the third respondent has been defaulted. It is further evident that the charges for the electricity consumed by the petitioner also have been defaulted. The defence of the third respondent to Ext.P27 petition filed by the petitioner before the Accommodation Controller seeking a direction for restoration of the electricity supply was that such a direction is not liable to be passed as rent is heavily in arrears and as electricity charges are also in arrears. The Accommodation Controller allowed Ext.P27 by passing Ext.P30 order. Ext.P30 order turns more on considerations of indulgence than legal considerations. The Accommodation Controller was of the view that it was not at all fair to allow an institution where 40 employees are working to be compulsorily closed "merely on the complaint of non-payment of rent and electricity charges". Accordingly, Accommodation Controller directed immediate restoration of the supply on condition that arrears of electricity charges as per the contract shall be deposited by the petitioner in not less than four instalments. As regards the dispute regarding payment of arrears of rent, the parties were relegated to the Rent Control Court. The District Collector under Ext.P32 interfered with Ext.P30 and vacated Ext.P30. The District Collector under Ext.P32 has directed the petitioner to approach M/s Kinfra, the 4th respondent in this Writ Petition for getting independent connection. As regards the dispute regarding the rent actually payable, the District Collector also endorsed the view of the Accommodation Controller that the aggrieved party will have to seek relief from the Rent Control Court.

(2.) IN this Writ Petition various grounds have been raised assailing Ext.P32. We have heard submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri.A.R.Dileep and those of the Advocate representing the Standing Counsel for the third respondent. The question is whether Ext.P32 is liable to be interfered with. It is clear to our mind that the question has to be answered in the negative. The issue as to what is the rent actually in arrears and as to what is the contract rent and as to whether the rent claimed by the third respondent is reasonable, all are issues which should be settled by the local Rent Control Court. It is not disputed that charges for the power actually consumed by the petitioner has been kept in arrears by the petitioner. So long as power charges are kept in arrears, the insistence of the petitioner/tenant that the supply should be restored is not justified. IN that view of the matter, we do not find infirmity with Ext.P32. We decline to interfere with Ext.P32. We reiterate that it is open to the petitioner to move M/s Kinfra for separate connection in the petitioner's own name. If any application in that regard is received by the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent will take a decision on that application in accordance with the normal procedure. It is submitted before us on behalf of the third respondent that the third respondent will not raise any objection in the matter provided the current charges due and rent in arrears as of now are cleared. We record the above submission and direct the third respondent to issue the required no objection letter from their part once the power charges are discharged in full. As regards the recovery of rent arrears both sides are permitted to approach the Rent Control Court for the needed relief. Though we have declined jurisdiction, we are inclined to continue the interim order which we passed in this case on 08/04/10 for a period of three more months from today on condition that the petitioner pays to the third respondent a further amount of Rs.3 lakhs within one month from today towards the rent dues.