IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3140 of 2009(W)
1. SARALA KUMARY, W/O. RAGHUNATHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SASTHAMCOTTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI. K.SIJU
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/02/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 3140 OF 2009 (W)
=====================
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the tenant of Room No.6 of a shopping complex
belonging to the respondent Panchayat. Ext.P1 is the rent deed in
favour of the petitioner and the lease period is for the period from
1/6/07 to 31/3/2010. It is stated that petitioner defaulted in
payment of the rental and the Panchayat issued Ext.P2 notice
informing her that the Panchayat will be free to initiate action for
cancellation of the lease.
2. According to the petitioner, immediately thereafter, on
31/7/2008, she surrendered the building and remitted the arrears
that were due till then. It is also stated that immediately
thereafter she issued Ext.P4 letter requesting the Panchayat to
refund the security deposit after appropriating any amount that
may be due from her. Petitioner submits that in pursuance to all
the above, Panchayat published re auction notice on 11/8/08 and
that the building in question was re auctioned on 18/8/2008 and
that in the re auction, there was no bidders.
3. It is her case that although she had surrendered the
WPC 3140/09
:2 :
building as early as on 31/7/2008 and the Panchayat took steps
for re auctioning the building, the Panchayat issued Ext.P5 notice
calling upon the petitioner to remit the arrears for the period
subsequent to 31/7/2008. It is on receipt of Ext.P5, this writ
petition was filed.
4. According to the petitioner, she having surrendered the
building as early as on 31/7/2008 and the Panchayat having
resumed possession and took steps for re auctioning the
premises, she should not be saddled with the liability to pay the
rental for the period subsequent to 31/7/2008.
5. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed by the
Panchayat, what they say is that the petitioner remitted the rental
due only till 31/7/2008 and that the building was not surrendered
as claimed by her. It is stated that even as on date, the petitioner
still retains the possession of the building, and therefore, she is
liable to pay the rental due under Ext.P1.
6. From the above, therefore, it can be seen that the real
dispute is as to whether petitioner prematurely surrendered the
premises to the Panchayat as the petitioner contends. The
Panchayat denies this allegation and submits that even today, the
WPC 3140/09
:3 :
key is retained by the petitioner. Such a factual dispute cannot be
resolved in a writ petition and can be resolved only in a
proceedings where both parties can adduce evidence in support
of the respective contentions.
In my view, therefore, the remedy of the petitioner lies
before the Civil Court, and hence, leaving open all her
contentions, I dismiss this writ petition reserving liberty to the
petitioner to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp