V.A.BABY THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner of a multi storied commercial building at Pallutruthy Nada Junction, Ernakulam District. According to the petitioner, as per Exts.P1 and P2, the 2nd floor of the said building was taken on lease by respondents 2 and 3 for the conduct of temporary Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattanchery at a monthly rent of Rs.30,031/- w.e.f.1.8.2014. Respondents have also taken on lease first floor of the said building for the conduct of temporary Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I.Act, cases) Kochi w.e.f. 30.3.2015 agreeing to pay the very same rent. The actual rent of the building was, according to the petitioner, is Rs.60,000/- per month. However, as per Ext.P6, the rent was fixed at Rs.17,703/- per month, which was not acceptable to the petitioner. Thereafter, the rent was re-fixed at Rs.20,077/- per month w.e.f.30.3.2015 to 5.2.2016 and Rs.32,390/- per month from 5.2.2016 onwards as per Ext.P12, which was also not acceptable to the petitioner. Anyhow, the building was vacated on 22.9.2017 as per Ext.P16 , however, no rent was paid to the petitioner. Even though 3rd respondent requested the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary), High Court of Kerala to enquire into the anomaly in fixing the rent and fix the very same rent for the 1st floor of the building which is fixed for the 2 nd floor of the building at Rs.39,031/- instead of PWD rate has not found any results, which constrained the petitioner to approach this court by filing this writ petition. In spite of pendency of this case before this court from 10.10.2018, no counter affidavit is seen filed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

(3.) Apparently from the fact discussion, it is clear that, the case projected by the petitioner is that, petitioner is not paid rent in accordance with the terms of the agreement and overlooking the rent paid to the 2nd floor of the building, which was also availed by 2nd and 3rd respondents for the conduct of tempory Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I.Act, cases) at Mattanchary. In my considered view, even though recommendation is made as per Ext.P18 dated 17.7.2018 by the 3rd respondent, so far no action is initiated by the State Government. When a building is let out, the State Government or the appropriate department will have to fix the rent in terms of the agreement or other procedure to be followed by the department or State Government. It is also evident from the documents produced by the petitioner that, various representations were being filed by the petitioner seeking to fix the rent as is fixed for the 2nd floor, however, no action was initiated. In that view of the matter, I think it is only appropriate that, the writ petition is disposed of with necessary directions.