K. N. FAJAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Petitioner is the Managing Partner of an entity engaged in the business of household items. In the year 2005, he had applied for and was allotted storage space in certain rooms measuring 6364 sq. feet in the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium by the 2nd respondent Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) as per Ext.P1 offer letter dtd. 28/3/2005 upon depositing the amounts as directed therein and upon compliance with the conditions therein. It was specifically stipulated in Ext.P1 that a licence agreement had to be registered at the cost and expense of the petitioner within 15 days of remittance of the advance amount and that permission to use the space will be granted only on production of the registered licence agreement in original. It is the contention of the petitioner that though a draft licence deed was prepared and presented for execution before the 2nd respondent the same was never executed. Subsequently, vide Ext.P2 dtd. 3/10/2005 further amounts were sought towards advance rent and security deposit and the petitioner was also permitted to carry out repair works and the cost of such repairs was permitted to be adjusted from future rent. Thereafter in the year 2006 the petitioner was issued with Ext.P3 dtd. 26/9/2006 directing to furnish further additional security which too was deposited and a request was preferred for the execution of the licence which was to no avail. It is contended by the petitioner that he was unable to utilize the rented premises due to the absence of the registered licence deed as without such deed, it was impossible to take registration under the relevant statutes Sales Tax Act, Value Added Tax for running a godown. While so in the year 2011, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 directing him to pay Rs.29,83,870.00 towards arrears of rent for the period 29/3/2005 to 10/3/2010. Petitioner replied to the same vide Ext.P5 pointing out that no licence deed had been executed and that the repair cost incurred by him had not been adjusted to the rent arrears. Thereafter, Ext.P6 demand notice dtd. 10/8/2012 was issued to the petitioner for an amount of Rs.28,85,865.00 which had been arrived at after deducting the amount of Rs.98,005.00 spent for repairs. Petitioner preferred a representation Ext.P7 dtd. 21/8/2012 before the concerned minister and obtained Ext.P8 order which inter alia called for a report as well as directed the GCDA to keep the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 in abeyance. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of Ext.P8 order of the Government, the GCDA issued another demand notice dtd. 24/9/2012 demanding from the petitioner an amount of Rs.80,13,778.00 within 7 days towards arrears of rent for the period 29/3/2005 to 30/9/2012. The petitioner then filed W.P (C) No.22862 of 2012 before this Court which led to Ext.P10 judgment dtd. 19/10/2012 inter alia directing as follows:

(3.) A counter affidavit dtd. 17/3/2016 has been filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents viz., the Secretary of the GCDA as well as its Estate Officer, inter alia contending that though the petitioner had occupied the relevant rooms from 29/3/2005 onwards, no payment was made by him towards licence fee and other charges except an amount of Rs.1,35,100.00 remitted towards security deposit. The rent and security deposit were refixed as per the additional space allotted to the petitioner. Though a draft lease agreement had been issued to the petitioner, he did not execute the same. He had been using the rooms as godown space without registering the lease deed and without paying rent. Ext.P13 G.O. had for reasons elaborated therein specifically concluded that the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves no merit and the same had been rejected.