EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. ABDUL JABBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these second appeals, a common question is involved and hence they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The appeals are filed by the Executive Officer and President of Vadakkencherry Panchayat. All the suits were by the occupants of the shop rooms owned by the Panchayat. Since the facts are similar in all the cases it as sufficient if the facts in one case is stated. The difference with regard to other cases are only in the dates of entrustment and amounts of rent. In O.S. No. 61 of 1988, the plaintiff was entrusted with room No. 3 of the shopping complex owned by the Panchayat. He was the successful bidder in auction conducted by the Panchayat. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 610/-. Ext. B1 is the agreement executed by the plaintiff and the Executive Officer of the Panchayat. The agreement is for a period of one year from 1-4-1987 to 31-3-1988. It was agreed by the tenant that after the period of one year, the shop room will be surrendered on 31-3-1988 and the advance amount taken back. According to the plaintiff, he was conducting business in the shop room form 1-4-1984 onwards. Subsequently, the Panchayat published a notice on 25-2-1988 showing that the right to do business in the plaint schedule shop room and other rooms are proposed to be auctioned on 14-3-1988. According to the plaintiff, the defendant Panchayat has no right to put in auction the shop room without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff for option and the action of the Panchayat has no legal validity. It is against the guidelines issued by the Government in respect of shop rooms in the shopping complex owned by the local bodies. Therefore the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from conducting auction for doing business in the plaint schedule room also from evicting the plaintiff from the plaint schedule room.

(2.) The defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has executed an agreement in favour of the Panchayat. The plaintiff was informed of about the conduct of the auction and he has signed the auction notice kept by the Panchayat. The plaintiff is free to participate in the auction. The decision of the Panchayat is valid and it is not against the guidelines. The circular relied on by the plaintiff has been amended subsequently. The plaintiff has been relying on the unamended circular. The plaintiff has not right to continue in the shop room after the expiry of the agreement period. It is therefore contended that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit as the right of the plaintiff to continue in possession of the shop room has lapsed.

(3.) As already stated, all the suits similarly filed against the Panchayat were tried jointly and a common judgment was passed by the trial court. All the suits were decreed. The plaintiff mainly relied on Ext. A2 circular dated 28.12.1985 issued by the Local Administration Department, Government of Kerala. The Panchayat on the other hand relied on Ext. B2 circular dated 13/3/1987 issued by the Government of Kerala. It is the contention of the plaintiff, that as per Ext. A2 circular, after the period of lease, he has got a right of option to continue in the shop room for an enhanced rent of 5% and he will not be dispossessed from the shop room. The option of continuing the tenancy is with the allottee. Only in cases of default or violating the terms and conditions of the lease or for specific economic offences or misconduct like tax evasion or adulteration, he can be evicted. At the end of Ext. A2 circular it is stated that these guidelines will be strictly followed by the local bodies .