BY AD v. PHILIP T.VARGHESE

(ADDITIONAL R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.03.2022 IN WP(C) 1103/2010) BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT COR BIJU G., SC, SIDCO SRI. VENUGOPAL V (GP) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

22.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 1103 OF 2010 2 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court, challenging Exts.P2, P6 and P23 proceedings and seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to purchase the leased premises under Ext.P1 by way of hire purchase on the same terms as extend to other units in the Palluruthy Industrial Estate.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- Late C.K. Venkitram Naidu was allotted an industrial land in the Palluruthy Industrial estate where he had started an industrial unit. On 09.04.1996, through Ext.P2 order, the lease granted to late C.K. Venkitram Naidu was terminated and the premises were sought to be taken back by the 2nd respondent-Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd, principally on the ground that there was no industrial activity in the premises in question. Late C.K. Venkitram Naidu approached this Court by filing O.P No.8596/2005, which was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment, directing that, if he files a representation before the 1st respondent therein (SIDCO), the same shall be considered with notice to the petitioner therein and further directing the petitioner WP(C) NO. 1103 OF 2010 3 therein to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards the alleged arrears of lease rent.

3. By Ext.P6 order dated 22.11.20005, the 2nd respondent herein decided that late C.K. Venkitram Naidu was bound to surrender the leased premises, finding that there was no industrial activity in the plot in question. Thereafter, Ext.P10 order, under the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1968 (the 1968 Act) was issued, against which late C.K. Venkitram Naidu filed Ext.P11 appeal and stay petition before the 1st respondent-District Collector under Section 10 of the 1968 Act. Late C.K. Venkitram Naidu also approached this Court by filing W.P. (C.) No.21114 of 2006, which was disposed of by Ext.P12 judgment, directing consideration of the appeal and further directing that pending disposal of the appeal, the eviction of late C.K. Venkitram Naidu shall remain stayed. By Ext.P3 order dated

30.11.2009, the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal filed by late C.K. Venkitram Naidu, prompting him to approach this Court by filing the above writ petition. While the above writ petition was pending before this Court, C.K. Venkitram Naidu passed away and his legal heir is now prosecuting the writ petition on behalf of late C.K. Venkitram Naidu. It appears that, pursuant to an interim order WP(C) NO. 1103 OF 2010 4 dated 24.11.2021 in this writ petition, the petitioner was permitted to approach the 2nd respondent with a representation. The petitioner, therefore, filed a representation before the 2nd respondent and by proceedings dated 09.03.2022, the 2nd respondent, rejected the claim for out right purchase. It was held that the liability of the petitioner for rent will be only upto

09.04.1996, the date on which the occupancy was terminated. It is seen from the proceedings dated 09.03.2022 that, though the petitioner was directed to produce a Detailed Project Report regarding the industry proposed to be started on the land in question for the purposes of reconsidering the allotment of the land/shed, the petitioner failed to file any such proposal, but continued to request for out right purchase of the land. Therefore, the 2nd respondent rejected the claim made by the petitioner. The proceedings dated 09.03.2022 have been placed on record in this writ petition by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent along with a memo dated 16.03.2022.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the land was originally allotted to the father of the petitioner (late C.K.Venkitram Naidu) in the year 1964. It is submitted that, an industry was functioning upon the land and in a WP(C) NO. 1103 OF 2010 5 shed constructed by the petitioner's late father. It is submitted that, since the roof of the shed had collapsed, the industry had to be shifted to other premises. It is submitted that, there was no demand for any enhanced lease rent. It is submitted that the petitioner/his late father alone has been discriminated against and though the land within the industrial estate was allowed to be purchased on hire purchase basis by other allottees, the same was denied only to the petitioner/his late father. It is submitted that, while the finding in the proceedings dated 09.03.2022 of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner had not submitted any project report is correct, the petitioner did not submit the report as directed only on account of the fact that the 2nd respondent had again denied the request of the petitioner for purchase of the land in question on the same terms as given to the allottees, who were allowed land at the same point of time.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that, there is absolutely no merit in the contentions taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is submitted that, the admitted facts itself show that there was no industry functioning in the land allotted to the late father of the petitioner. It is submitted that, though demands were WP(C) NO. 1103 OF 2010 6 raised for enhanced lease rent, the same had not been paid. It is submitted that a reading of Ext.P3 judgment itself will show that there was a demand for enhanced lease rent as the same had been challenged before this Court by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner, cannot, therefore, take a stand at this point of time that there was no demand for enhanced lease rent. It is submitted that the land within the industrial estate is allotted at very nominal rates for the purposes running an industry and when industrial activity is not happening, it is open to the 2nd respondent to repossess the land. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, there is no illegality, whatsoever, in the proceedings concluded against the petitioner under the provisions of the 1968 Act.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference with the impugned orders. It is not disputed before me that, by the time the impugned proceedings were issued, the industrial activity upon the land in question had ceased. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner may be right in contending that there was no demand for enhanced lease rent WP(C) NO. 1103 OF 2010 7 by issuing a notice to the petitioner (it is seen that Ext.P10 mentioned in Ext.P3 judgment is a notice for enhanced lease rent issued to another allottee), it is a fact that the petitioner had actually challenged the demand for enhanced lease rent. It is also clear from the proceedings that the petitioner had not paid the enhanced lease rent and instead, continued to pay the lease rent at the last revised rates. This also constitutes a violation of terms upon which the land was leased to the late father of the petitioner. That apart, it is seen from the proceedings dated 09.03.2022 that the obligation of the petitioner to pay enhanced lease rent had been restricted to the period upto the date on which the allotment had been cancelled by Ext.P2. That apart, the 2nd respondent had clearly stated that the request of the petitioner for re-allotment could not be considered as the petitioner had failed to submit any project report giving details of the industrial activity, that is proposed on the land, if it were to be re-allotted to the petitioner. The record of the case also shows that the industry of the petitioner (originally started by his late father) had been shifted to other premises at Thoppumpady. Taking all these facts cumulatively into consideration, I am of the view that there is no illegality, whatsoever, in the WP(C) NO. 1103 OF 2010 8 impugned proceedings. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE WP(C) NO. 1103 OF 2010 9 APPENDIX Exhibit P1: True copy of the lease deed dated 01.07.1964 relating to the premises of the Petitioner's unit issued by the 2nd Respondent Exhibit P2: True photocopy of the termination Order bearing No: IE (2)/ PRY/ 4 dated 09.04.1996 terminating the lease of the Petitioner's unit issued by the 2nd Respondent Exhibit P3: True photocopy of the Judgment dated 23.06.2005 passed by this Hon'ble Court in OP No: 8596 of 2005 Exhibit P4: True photocopy of the letter bearing No: IE (2)/ PRY/ 4 dated 20.01.2006 returning the DD towards the rent for the period from 01.10.2005 to 31.03.2006 paid by the Petitioner Exhibit P5: True copy of the representation dated 14.11.2005 (with the acknowledgment card thereof) along with the brief note dated 02.11.2005 Exhibit P6: True photocopy of the proceedings bearing No: IE (2)/ PRY/ 4 dated 22.11.2005 of the 2nd Respondent upholding Ext. P2 termination Order Exhibit P7: True photocopy of the request dated 12.02.2003 for hire purchase made to the 2nd Respondent by the Petitioner Exhibit P8: True photocopy of the request dated 28.08.2003 for hire purchase made to the 2nd Respondent by the Petitioner Exhibit P9: True photocopy of the request dated 12.07.2005 of the Petitioner for hire purchase made to the 2nd Respondent with copy to the 3rd Respondent Exhibit P10: True photocopy of the eviction Order bearing No: ENF/ EVC/ 152 – A/ 7282/ 96 dated 30.03.2006 issued to the Petitioner under Section 5 of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968 Exhibit P11: True photocopy of the Appeal and Stay Petition against Ext. P10 Order filed by the Petitioner before the 1st Respondent District Collector under Section 10 and 10 (3) of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968 WP(C) NO. 1103 OF 2010 10 Exhibit P12: True photocopy of the Judgment dated 14.08.2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P (C) 21114 of 2006 Exhibit P13: True photocopy of the letter dated 16.12.1994 issued by the Counsel for the Petitioner to the 2nd Respondent Exhibit P14: True photocopy of the representation dated 11.09.2006 (along with the acknowledgment Cards thereof) submitted by the Petitioner before the 2nd Respondent with a copy to the 3rd Respondent requesting to carry out repairs of the leased premises Exhibit P15: True photocopy of the communication dated 16.09.2006 (along with the postal receipt thereof) addressed by the lawyer of the Petitioner to the 1st Respondent seeking a direction to the 2nd Respondent to repair the damages caused to the leased premises Exhibit P16: True photocopy of the letter dated 12.04.2007 (along with the A/D cards thereof) issued by the Petitioner informing the Respondents that in view of the heavy damages caused the Petitioner was forced to close down the business in the leased premises Exhibit P17: True photocopy of the letter bearing No: IE (2)/ PRY/ 4 dated 02.05.2007 issued by the 2nd Respondent to the Petitioner in reply to Ext. P16 letter Exhibit P18: True photocopy of the Order bearing No: M6 - 43105/ 08 dated 16.07.2009 issued by the 1st Respondent dismissing Ext. P11 Appeal and upholding Ext. P10 eviction Order Exhibit P19: True photocopy of the Judgment dated 25.08.2009 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P (C) 23316 of 2009 Exhibit P20: True photocopy of the hearing Notice dated 23.09.2009 issued by the 1st Respondent to the Petitioner scheduling the hearing on 05.10.2009 Exhibit P21: True photocopy of the Notes of Argument dated 05.10.2009 submitted on behalf of the Petitioner before the 1st Respondent on 05.10.2009 Exhibit P22: True photocopy of the List of Documents dated 05.10.2009 submitted on behalf of the Petitioner before the 1st Respondent on 05.10.2009 104 107 WP(C) NO. 1103 OF 2010 11 Exhibit P23: True photocopy of the proceedings dated 30.11.2009 43105/ 08 of the 1st Respondent dismissing Ext. bearing No: M6 - P11 Appeal; served on the Petitioner on 11.12.2009 108 112 Exhibit P24: True extract of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968 RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(a) – COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.09.2006 EXHIBIT R1(b) – COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARDS ATTACHED TO THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.09.2006 EXHIBIT R1(c) – TRUE COPY LETTER NO.C1.12609/08 DATED 02.03.2009 EXHIBIT R1(d) – COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.07.2009