M.K. RAJENDRAN Vs. CALICUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed by the same person, Sri.M.K.Rajeendran. According to him, certain extents of his property had been acquired by the Calicut Development Corporation for the purpose of construction of a shopping complex and a Link Road to the Railway Station and he says that as a rehabilitative measure, he was allotted two shop rooms in the newly constructed shopping complex.

(2.) His contention in W.P.(C)No.39326/2015 is that the Calict Development Authority, which is now stated to have merged with the Calicut Corporation, is not entitled to seek renewal of the lease of the above rooms from him because he contends that his lease is of a permanent nature, which is to say, being without any fixed term and thus perpetual in nature. For this assertion, he relies on Exts.P10 and P11 orders of the Government as well as that of the erstwhile Calicut Development Authority to demonstrate that the allotment of rooms to him, though on rental basis, was intended to be permanent in its nature.

(3.) Sri.Parthasarathy, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the allotment is permanent in nature, the petitioner is not required to renew the lease in future and therefore, that the Authorities are obligated to issue to his client the possession certificate with respect to these rooms, as had been required by him before them.