Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs P.N. Ramesh Babu on 25 March, 2010
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RSA.No. 754 of 2009()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT
... Petitioner
2. DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT, EMPLOYMENT
3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
4. THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER,
Vs
1. P.N. RAMESH BABU, S/O. NEMACHANDRA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.SRINATH GIRISH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :25/03/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
=================================
R.S.A. NO. 754 of 2009
=================================
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
State is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub Judge, Sultan Bathery in A.S. No.44 of 2003 allowing the respondent to recover rent arrears in respect of a room belonging to him and rented out to the State to accommodate the Town Employment Exchange. It is not disputed that the said building belonged to the respondent and it was taken on rent by the appellants for accommodating the Town Employment Exchange. When the proposal came respondent offered to rent out the said building for a rent of Rs.4/- per square foot, per month as per Ext.A1, letter dated 25.11.1995. Consequent to that, appellant No.4 informed respondent as per Ext.A2, letter dated 29.11.1995 that a room having a plinth are of 1000 sq.ft. is needed. According to the respondent his room satisfied that requirement. There were correspondences between respondent and the Officers concerned. Exhibit A3 is the letter dated 30.11.1995 from appellant No.2 according sanction to take the room of the R.S.A. No.754 of 2009 -: 2 :- respondent on rent. As per that letter appellant No.2 approved the lease arrangement (rent being at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.foot per month) for 1000 sq.ft. till alternative accommodation is made available by the P.W.D for the Town Employment Exchange. Respondent handed over the room to appellant No.4 on 8.12.1995. Exhibit A4 is the letter of acknowledgment dated 1.1.1996 from appellant No.4. While so, respondent filed RCP No.10 of 1997 for eviction of appellants under Section 11(2)(b) of Act 2 of 1965 and in the course of that proceeding appellants deposited Rs.92,233/- towards rent arrears on 22.3.1994. Later appellants vacated the room of respondent on 28.2.2000 and deposited Rs.26,656/- being the balance rent arrears. Respondent filed O.S. No.114 of 1998 for recovery of further rent arrears but that suit was withdrawn with liberty to sue afresh and the present suit was filed claiming rent arrears for the period from 8.12.1995 to 28.2.2000 during which period appellants have been occupying the room of the respondent and after adjusting the deposit already made respondent demanded Rs.93,060/-. Statutory notice was issued to the appellants on 26.4.2000 demanding payment of the said amount but there was no reply R.S.A. No.754 of 2009 -: 3 :- and hence the suit. According to the respondent as on 1.1.2001, Rs.98,178/- was due to him. He also claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Contentions raised by the appellants are that PWD had fixed the rent at the rate of Rs.2,154/- per month from 10.12.1995 onwards as per Government Order dated 30.12.1996 and that respondent was not ready to execute an agreement in accordance with the rate fixed by the P.W.D. Appellants also referred to the deposits already made while the RCP was pending and claimed that no further amount is due to the respondent. Learned Munsiff took the view that going by the documentary evidence it was not a case of concluded contract between the parties as Ext.A4 clearly mentioned that rent of Rs.4/- per sq.foot per month is fixed subject to the procedural formalities, rent was approved by the PWD in accordance with the relevant rules and hence on the premise that rent payable is Rs.4/- per sq.foot per month respondent cannot claim any further amount. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. On appeal at the instance of the respondent first appellate court observed that interpretation given by the learned Munsiff to Ext.A4 is not correct and so far as the rent originally fixed there was no dispute between the R.S.A. No.754 of 2009 -: 4 :- parties. Based on the principle of promissory estoppel respondent was a given a decree. That is under challenge in this Second Appeal urging by way of substantial questions of law whether in the absence of any signed agreement appellants could be made liable to pay rent as found by the first appellate court and whether deposits made by the appellants wiped out the entire liability of the respondent. It is contended by learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants that interpretation given by the first appellate court to Ext.A4 is not legally sustainable and that a reading of the relevant document would show that there was only a tentative agreement fixing the rent at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.foot per month subject to the procedural formalities to be complied with by the PWD including fixation of rent. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader there is no concluded contract between the parties and hence respondent was not entitled to claim rent arrears as prayed for. Learned counsel for the respondent would support the finding of the first appellate court. Counsel also contended that on the principle of promissory estoppel appellants cannot resile from their acceptance of the offer made by the respondent. R.S.A. No.754 of 2009 -: 5 :-
2. Exhibit A1, it is not disputed is the offer made by the respondent to rent out the room having a plinth area of 1000 sq.ft. to the appellants for accommodating the Town Employment Exchange. There, he claimed rent at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.foot per month. Certainly Ext.A1 is only an offer. Exhibit A2 is a letter dated 29.11.1995 from appellant No.2 to appellant No.4 where there is reference of Ext.A1, offer of the respondent. Exhibit A2 informed appellant No.4 that sanction is accorded to take the room of the respondent on rent at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.foot per month "until alternative accommodation by PWD rate is made available". Exhibit A4 is the letter from appellant No.4 to the respondent, consequent to Ext.A2 informing the respondent about the decision of appellant No.2 and stating that Department is willing to take the room of the respondent on rent at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.foot per month. Learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that Ext.A4 would show that the agreement was only tentative until PWD fixed the rate. But I am unable to accept that contention. What is stated in Ext.A4 is that room of the respondent is taken on rent at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.foot per month and it reads, R.S.A. No.754 of 2009 -: 6 :- "
The above statement in Ext.A4 does not mean that rate of rent was yet to be fixed. It only meant that the quantum of rent was to be fixed after ascertaining the actual area of the room. This is clear from the contention raised in paragraph 5 of the written statement that "it is true that there was an understanding between the plaintiff and the second and fourth defendants to pay rent at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq. feet for a limited period. But the plaintiff is not entitled to claim at the rate more than what is fixed by the Government to that effect". Therefore from Ext.A4 it cannot be contended that agreement to give rent at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.foot per month was only tentative. Learned Government Pleader has not pointed out any provision or authority which states that in the absence of written agreement appellants are not liable to R.S.A. No.754 of 2009 -: 7 :- pay rent agreed to as per Exts.A2 and A4. It is on the strength of promise and agreement contained in Exts.A2 and A4 that respondent has let out his building at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.foot per month. Appellants are bound by the acceptance of the offer made in Exts.A2 and A4. First appellate court has correctly interpreted the documents and has come to the correct conclusion. Hence no substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal requiring its admission.
Second Appeal is dismissed in limine.
Interlocutory Application No.1655 of 2009 shall stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv