IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 40146 of 2003(D)
1. THE KSTE,CO-OP.SOCIETY LTD.4206,ALAPUZHA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KSRTC AND ANOTHER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :18/08/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 40146 of 2003
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 18th day of August, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is an employees’ co-operative society at
Alappuzha, of which the employees of the Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation are members. A room belonging to the Kerala
State Road Transport Corporation was allotted to the petitioner-
society on rental basis. According to the petitioner, the rent payable is
including electricity charges, which was being paid regularly by the
society. In support of the petitioner’s contention that the rent
includes electricity charges also the petitioner has produced Ext. P1
letter from the District Transport Officer to the Secretary of the
society, wherein revised rate of rent has been intimated to the
petitioner for various periods, which shows that the rent includes
electricity charges as well. But, the petitioner was served with Ext.
P2 letter from the District Transport Officer that it has been directed
to realise electricity charges from the petitioner-society with arrears
from the beginning of functioning of the society in the premises of the
Corporation at the rates mentioned therein. The petitioner filed Ext.
P3 reply stating that they are not bound to pay electricity charges
separately, that too, at such a huge rates insofar as they are only
using two lights and two fans functioning only on working days, that
too, during working hours in the day time. According to the
petitioner, no separate electricity meter is installed to record the
consumption of electricity by the petitioner. Despite the same, by
Ext. P4, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 74,200/-
stated to be arrears of electricity charges. The petitioner filed a
detailed representation Ext. P5 to the Managing Director of the
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation against the demand. By Ext.
P6 judgment in W.P(C) No. 27984/2003, this Court directed the
Managing Director to consider and pass orders on the same. The
W.P.C. No. 40146/2003 -: 2 :-
petitioner submitted an additional representation Ext. P7 before the
Managing Director. After considering the contentions of the
petitioner, by Ext. P8, the Managing Director rejected the
representation of the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances,
the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exts.P2, P4
and P8;
(ii) declare that in view of Ext. P1, the demand raised in
Exts.P2, P4 and P8 letter are unsustainable and therefore, is liable
to be quashed;
(iii) issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ or order or
direction quashing Exts.P2, P4 and P8.”
2. According to the petitioner, there was no agreement for
paying electricity charges separately in addition to the rent agreed.
The petitioner would contend that the rent included electricity
charges as well. In support of his contention, apart from Ext. P1, the
petitioner points out that no separate electricity meter is provided for
the connection to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no way to
ascertain the amount of electricity consumed by the petitioner, is the
contention of the petitioner. That is exactly why electricity charges
were included in the rent itself, contends the petitioner. The
petitioner therefore submits that the petitioner is not liable to pay
arrears of electricity charges now demanded by the respondents.
3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation, wherein the contention taken is that the usual
agreement to be executed for the rental arrangement contain a
clause to the effect that “the lessee shall pay the rent, current and
water charges as fixed by the lessor as per Rules in this regard from
time to time.” The petitioner did not execute that agreement although
W.P.C. No. 40146/2003 -: 3 :-
they were bound to is their contention. According to the respondents,
the petitioner has not paid electricity charges from 1-1-1986 onwards,
which only has been demanded from the petitioner. While admitting
that there is no separate electricity meter provided, the learned
counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation would argue
that the practice followed by the Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation is that the total electricity charges are divided among
all the tenants and proportionate amount is demanded from the
petitioner also. The respondents would therefore argue to sustain the
demand for arrears of electricity charges.
5. A reply has been filed by the petitioner, wherein the
contention regarding the execution of the agreement is denied. They
would reiterate that the rent included electricity charges as well and
even otherwise, after having issued Ext. P1 fixing rent including
electricity charges also, the respondents cannot recover arrears of
electricity charges separately.
6. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
7. Although the standing counsel for the Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation would contend that the petitioner has
deliberately protracted signing of the agreement, even the form of
that agreement is not produced before this Court. It is not disputed
before me that no separate electricity meter is provided for
ascertaining the consumption of electricity by the petitioner. The
petitioner has, in Ext. P3, stated that they are using only two tube
lights and two fans, which are used only during working hours during
day time on working days. According to them, the very same working
days as applicable to Government offices are applicable to the society
also. Ext. P1 letter dated 18-8-2000 issued by the District Transport
Officer to the society is not disputed by the respondents. In the same,
W.P.C. No. 40146/2003 -: 4 :-
the petitioner has been informed by the District Transport Officer that
the rent payable by the society is being revised as stated therein. In
Ext. P1, at three places, it is specifically stated that what is
demanded is rent per month including current charges. That would
lead to the natural inference that the rent payable by the society
includes current charges as well. The fact that no separate electricity
meter is provided for ascertaining the electricity consumption of the
petitioner supports such an inference also. Further, the fact that for
17 years the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation did not care to
demand electricity charges from the petitioner would also support
such an inference. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the rent fixed
for the petitioner is inclusive of current charges as well. That being
so, the respondents cannot now demand arrears of electricity charges
as has been done by the impugned orders.
Accordingly, Exts.P2, P4 and P8 are quashed. It is declared that
the petitioner is not liable to pay electricity charges in addition to the
rent already paid by the petitioner insofar as the rent includes
electricity charges as well. The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/