IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33458 of 2009(B)
1. M/S. GENFOCUS INFOTECH (I)LTD., IA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTE BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
3. INFOPARK KERALA, THAPASYA,
4. KINFRA EXPORT PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
For Respondent :SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, INFOPARKS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :06/12/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
W. P. C. No.33458 of 2009
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
Under challenge in this Writ Petition filed
under Article 226 is Ext.P32 order passed by the
District Collector interfering with Ext.P30 order
passed by the Accommodation Controller under
Section 13 of Act 2 of 1965. It is conceded that
the status of the petitioner/company is that of a
tenant and that its landlord in respect of the
premises in question is the third respondent,
another company M/s Infopark Kerala. It is also
evident that the contract rent payable by the
petitioner to the third respondent has been
W. P. C. No.33458 of 2009 -2-
defaulted. It is further evident that the charges for
the electricity consumed by the petitioner also
have been defaulted. The defence of the third
respondent to Ext.P27 petition filed by the
petitioner before the Accommodation Controller
seeking a direction for restoration of the electricity
supply was that such a direction is not liable to be
passed as rent is heavily in arrears and as
electricity charges are also in arrears. The
Accommodation Controller allowed Ext.P27 by
passing Ext.P30 order. Ext.P30 order turns more
on considerations of indulgence than legal
considerations. The Accommodation Controller
was of the view that it was not at all fair to allow
an institution where 40 employees are working to
W. P. C. No.33458 of 2009 -3-
be compulsorily closed “merely on the complaint
of non-payment of rent and electricity charges”.
Accordingly, Accommodation Controller directed
immediate restoration of the supply on condition
that arrears of electricity charges as per the
contract shall be deposited by the petitioner in not
less than four instalments. As regards the dispute
regarding payment of arrears of rent, the parties
were relegated to the Rent Control Court. The
District Collector under Ext.P32 interfered with
Ext.P30 and vacated Ext.P30. The District
Collector under Ext.P32 has directed the petitioner
to approach M/s Kinfra, the 4th respondent in this
Writ Petition for getting independent connection.
As regards the dispute regarding the rent actually
W. P. C. No.33458 of 2009 -4-
payable, the District Collector also endorsed the
view of the Accommodation Controller that the
aggrieved party will have to seek relief from the
Rent Control Court.
2. In this Writ Petition various grounds have
been raised assailing Ext.P32. We have heard
submissions of the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, Sri.A.R.Dileep and those of the
Advocate representing the Standing Counsel for
the third respondent. The question is whether
Ext.P32 is liable to be interfered with. It is clear to
our mind that the question has to be answered in
the negative. The issue as to what is the rent
actually in arrears and as to what is the contract
rent and as to whether the rent claimed by the
W. P. C. No.33458 of 2009 -5-
third respondent is reasonable, all are issues
which should be settled by the local Rent Control
Court. It is not disputed that charges for the
power actually consumed by the petitioner has
been kept in arrears by the petitioner. So long as
power charges are kept in arrears, the insistence
of the petitioner/tenant that the supply should be
restored is not justified. In that view of the
matter, we do not find infirmity with Ext.P32. We
decline to interfere with Ext.P32. We reiterate that
it is open to the petitioner to move M/s Kinfra for
separate connection in the petitioner’s own name.
If any application in that regard is received by the
4th respondent, the 4th respondent will take a
decision on that application in accordance with the
W. P. C. No.33458 of 2009 -6-
normal procedure. It is submitted before us on
behalf of the third respondent that the third
respondent will not raise any objection in the
matter provided the current charges due and rent
in arrears as of now are cleared. We record the
above submission and direct the third respondent
to issue the required no objection letter from their
part once the power charges are discharged in
full. As regards the recovery of rent arrears both
sides are permitted to approach the Rent Control
Court for the needed relief. Though we have
declined jurisdiction, we are inclined to continue
the interim order which we passed in this case on
08/04/10 for a period of three more months from
today on condition that the petitioner pays to the
W. P. C. No.33458 of 2009 -7-
third respondent a further amount of Rs.3 lakhs
within one month from today towards the rent
dues.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
P. S. GOPINATHAN
JUDGE
kns/-