MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. ESTATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.4086 of 2019 in A.S.No.71 of 2019 of the Additional District Court-VII, Ernakulam, has preferred this original petition.

(2.) According to the petitioner, it is a registered society registered under the Societies Registration Act represented by its General Secretary, Calicut. The second respondent is a company constituted under the Companies Act 1956. First respondent is its senior manager. The second respondent was running schools in Ernakulam district including one at Udyogmandal. Due to financial constraints, administration and management of the school was entrusted to the petitioner on the basis of a license agreement dated 23.03.2004, produced as Ext.P1. The entrustment was pursuant to an open bid among the established institutions. Consequently, a 15 year lease, renewable for a further period of 15 years at the option of the petitioner was entered into. This is evident from clause (iv) of Ext.P1. Before the expiry of the above license period, petitioner invoked clause (iv) of the agreement by Ext.P3 letter dated 23.11.2018 and expressed their willingness for renewal of the agreement. Pursuant to the receipt of it, a committee of six members including three members each of the petitioner and the second respondent met to explore the terms and conditions, under which, Ext.P1 agreement could be renewed. The committee met on 20.12.2018 to deliberate on it. The copy of the minutes is produced as Ext.P4. According to the petitioner, it was ready and willing to perform its part of the terms and to run the school. Expecting that the license would be renewed, they had made arrangements for running classes in the next academic year also. They claimed that, they have invested huge amounts for the above. In the meanwhile, Ext.P5 letter dated 20.02.2019 was issued by the second respondent directing the petitioner to vacate the building by 31.03.2019. An advertisement inviting new tenders for running the above school was published in the newspaper on 23.02.2019. Though the issue was tried to be sorted out by the petitioner, according to them, it was not successful. Thereafter, Ext.P4 notice under section 4(2) (c) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act (hereinafter referred as "the Public Premises Act") was issued requesting the petitioner to appear before the first respondent on 27.05.2019. The Secretary at Udyogmandal was served and they filed objection. Notice was served on the petitioner at Calicut only on 28.05.2019, disabling the petitioner from appearing on 27.05.2019. On 29.05.2019, first respondent passed Ext.P7 order invoking section 5(1) of the Public Premises Act, directing the petitioner and its employees to vacate on or before 31.05.2019. Statutory appeals were preferred. I.A.No.4086 of 2019 in A.S.No.71 of 2019 was filed in that, to stay the operation of Ext.P7 order. Respondent filed a counter. Court below by Ext.P12 order dismissed the application, which is assailed in this original petition.

(3.) Respondents in their counter affidavit had denied the material averments. According to them, the leave and license agreement dated 23.03.2004 was not disputed. According to them, petitioner cannot seek the aid of the court to compel the respondents to renew the agreement. The terms of the minutes of the joint committee dated 20.12.2018 was only subject to the approval of the Board of Directors of the respondents. Since the Board of Directors had resolved not to renew the license, question of renewal of the agreement also does not arise. According to the respondents, the agreement was expected to expire on 31.03.2019 and notice was issued in advance to the petitioner. If they were genuinely interested in running the school during the future academic years also, they should have participated in the tendering process and if they turned to be the highest bidder, agreement would have been executed with the petitioner. In the tender, another institution became the highest tenderer and tender was fixed in their favour. License in favour of the petitioner has expired and the suit itself is not maintainable. It was stated that, by virtue of clause (vi) of the agreement, on the expiry of the license, petitioner was bound to vacate the building and to surrender possession of the building along with its fixtures. Even in the meeting held between the parties, it was clearly informed that the final decision will be taken only by the approval of the management. Tender process has been completed and it has been confirmed in favour of M/s/Kasturba English Medium (Senior Secondary) School, which was the highest bidder. Since the petitioner refused to vacate the premises, respondents issued show cause notice. It was served on the petitioner and they refused to turn up. It was affixed on the school premises also. On 27.05.2019, petitioner submitted its objection and requested for a personal hearing. Though the e-mail dated 27.05.2019 was sent to the petitioner requesting them to appear for personal hearing on 28.05.2019, petitioner did not turn up for personal hearing. Since license agreement was not renewed, they are not entitled to claim any right. The balance of convenience was in favour of the respondents.