BAIJU JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had taken out a room on rent from the DTPC for the conduct of Cafeteria. The petitioner is conducting Cafeteria on the strength of lease agreement till March 2018. It is stated that the petitioner had suffered huge loss due to flood and that the functioning of Cafeteria was also seriously affected. The petitioner had submitted several representations and was also forced to approach this Court with regard to the lack of infrastructural facilities to conduct the Cafeteria in the premises. It is submitted that the petitioner has now been issued with Ext.P9 notice stating that the petitioner had not renewed the agreement after 1.3.2018 and that he had sublet the premises to somebody else. It is also stated in Ext.P9 that the petitioner had made unauthorised construction appurtenant to the leased building. The petitioner is therefore required to vacate the premises within three days. It is further submitted that Ext.P10 representation has been preferred by the petitioner pointing out the factual aspects of the matter. It is stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to remit the rent due from him and seeks a consideration of Ext.P10 representation with notice to the petitioner before any further steps are taken on Ext.P10.