AJMAL Vs. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The demand raised under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the "Revenue Recovery Act") is questioned in this writ petition on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The facts in the present writ petition disclose that the petitioner entered into a lease agreement with Greater Cochin Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "GCDA"), as evident from Ext.P3, in respect of a shop room, which he had successfully bid at auction. Pursuant to the execution of the lease agreement, the petitioner was required to pay rent for the shop room he occupied. Petitioner has a case that he was not able to run the business for which the shop was taken on rent because of various extraneous factors, with which this Court is not concerned. On the expiration of the lease, it appears that the GCDA sent a requisition for revenue recovery for the recovery of arrears of rent.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel, Sri.C.Y. Vinod Kumar, for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, Smt. Mini V.A, for respondents 2 & 3.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the demand issued by the revenue recovery authorities on requisition of the GCDA is barred by limitation. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. Y.R. Kalyanikutty [1999 (2) KLT 146], wherein it was held that the provisions of the Limitation Act will apply to the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner also takes me through the counter affidavit filed by the GCDA (respondent Nos. 2 and 3). In the counter affidavit it is specifically asserted in paragraph No.4 that the term of the agreement expired on 17/3/2014. It is further averred in paragraph No. 5 of the above counter affidavit that the respondent sent a requisition for revenue recovery on 16/11/2017. Therefore, it is evidently clear that the requisition is beyond a period of three years.