Kerala High Court
Ponnamma Abraham vs The Regional Manager on 20 January, 2009
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36314 of 2007(W)
1. PONNAMMA ABRAHAM, SHARON, 29/614,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. SENIOR SALES MANAGER,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.P.JACOB
For Respondent :SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :20/01/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P. No. 16277 of 2002 &
W.P(C)No.36314 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009
J U D G M E N T
These two writ petitions are filed by the owner of a property at Edappally by the side of the National High way, which was held on lease by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The lease was originally in favour of the Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd. By virtue of the Caltex (Acquisition of shares of Calex Oil Refining (India) Ltd., and of the undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Ltd. Act. 1977 the undertakings of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. were taken over by the Government of India and entrusted with the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., who became entitled to renewal of the lease automatically without consent from the owner by operation of the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner filed O.P No. 16277/02 with the allegation that petitioner is not being paid appropriate enhancement of rent by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., for the period during which the lease was compulsory renewed by the virtue of the provisions of the Act. Subsequently, the statutory period for which there was automatic renewal of the lease period also expired. As such now the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation is bound to surrender the land in question to the petitioner which is not disputed before me. The O.P. No. 16277 of 2002 & W.P(C)No.36314 of 2007 - 2 - petitioner therefore seeks appropriate enhancement of rent for the period during which the company got the statutory extension of the lease period.
2. Although, the respondents opposed the claims of the petitioner in so far as the statutory period has already expired, I am not inclined to countenance the contention of the respondents in regard to vacating the premises after expiry of the lease period, especially since the Corporation had the benefit of enjoyment of the property at a prime location in Ernakulam city for their purpose for a paltry sum for more than two decades. In view of the same, the learned counsel for the corporation submits that the Corporation may be given six months' time to vacate the premises. This is opposed by the counsel for the petitioner. He also presses for enhanced rent for the period during which the company was continuing to occupy the land on the basis of the statutory extension of the lease period. Although, this is opposed by the counsel for the Corporation on the ground that the remedy of the petitioner is to file a suit, for that purpose, being a Government owned Corporation which answers the definition of 'State' in Article 12 of the Constitution of India, I am inclined to decide that question also in this writ petition without relegating the petitioner to a long drawn out suit.
3. From Ext.P5 communication issued by the Corporation itself to the petitioner, they had agreed to for enhanced rent of Rs. 18,000/- per O.P. No. 16277 of 2002 & W.P(C)No.36314 of 2007 - 3 - month for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.10.2008, subject to certain conditions mentioned therein, which I am inclined to adopt as a basis for calculating the enhanced rent payable to the petitioner for the period from the date of filing of the original petition.
4. Accordingly, for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.10.2008 the respondent Corporation shall pay to the petitioner rent at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per month. For the period from 17.6.2002, that is the date of filing of original petition, till 31.3.2006, the Corporation shall pay rent at the rate reduced by 15% from Rs.18,000/- that is to say at the rate of Rs. 15,300/- per month. The respondents are given six months time from today to vacate the premises on the specific condition that the petitioner would be paid rent at the rate of 25,000/- per month from 1.11.2008 till the 6 months period from today expires. The arrears shall be paid within one month from today. If the corporation fails either to pay the arrears of enhanced rent or to vacate the premises on the expiry of six months it would be open to the petitioner to initiate appropriate action for violation of the above directions including proceedings for contempt of court.
These writ petitions are disposed of as above.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs