STANLEY PAULUS Vs. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is conducting business in stationery, vegetables and meat products in three shop rooms in Jawahar Nagar shopping complex, Thiruvananthapuram taken on lease from the Kerala State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board'). Shop rooms 1 and 2 and the latrine portion behind the shop rooms were allotted to the petitioner in the year 1976. Later, the portion behind the staircase was leased out to the petitioner in the year 1977. Ext.P1 is the lease agreement dtd. 3/1/1997 entered into by the petitioner with the Board in respect of shops 1, 2 and 3 and the space under the staircase. In Ext.P1, the rent was fixed as Rs.856.00 per month. Exts.P2 to P4 are the agreements by which the lease deed was renewed. The revised rent payable as per Ext.P4 agreement executed for the period from 1/6/2005 to 31/5/2008 was Rs.3,175.00.

(2.) The Executive Engineer of the Board, the 2nd respondent, issued Ext. P5 letter to the petitioner stating that the petitioner has been occupying an additional area of 297.62 square feet (comprising the extended portion and the area beneath the staircase), which does not fall within the scope of the lease deed. The petitioner was directed to demolish the construction made by him enclosing the common toilet. By Ext.P6, the 2nd respondent fixed the rent for the shop rooms at Rs.6,350.00. The petitioner states that the amount demanded in Ext.P6 is exorbitant. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P11 letter asking the petitioner to enter into fresh lease deed at the enhanced rate.

(3.) The petitioner filed an appeal before the Board against the fixation of rent, but the Chairman of the Board, by Ext.P14 order, rejected the appeal and directed the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction enclosing the toilet and staircase, and to restore the building to its original condition. It was also ordered that fresh lease agreement should be executed in respect of the excess area. The Executive Engineer by Ext.P15 letter informed the petitioner that if the unauthorised construction is not demolished, the Board will carry out the work at the cost of the petitioner. Later, the Executive Engineer issued Ext.P16 letter informing the petitioner that an excess area of 297.7 sq.ft. has been unauthorisedly occupied by the petitioner from the beginning of the tenancy without any lease agreement or paying rent and the petitioner was asked to surrender the excess area and to clear the arrears of rent for the excess area. The petitioner states that the Executive Engineer physically checked the measurement and submitted Ext.P17 report stating that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of an area of 297.62 sq.ft.