Residents Welfare Association vs Ciby George on 10 September, 2025

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Residents Welfare Association vs Ciby George on 10 September, 2025

After condoning the delay, we shall dispose of 21 writ appeals preferred by the members of the Residents Welfare Association of Chanderkunj Army Towers Apartment Owners, Army Welfare Housing Organisation (hereinafter referred to as AWHO for short), Silver Sand Island, Vytila P.O., Cochin, as well as by the AWHO, South Hutments, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi, through its Managing Director, against the judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 03.02.2025, wherein, a bunch of writ petitions bearing Nos. 40178 of 2023 & 10400, 20298, 21253, 22536, 24221, 28289, 29703, and 35585 of 2024 have been disposed of by issuing the following directions:

''a) The District Collector is directed to constitute a committee comprising of experts including an experienced Structural Engineer, two owners from the Residents Association, an experienced Engineer from W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 78 2025:KER:66848 the Municipality concerned, an experienced Officer from the Town Planning Department and such other personnel necessary for a proper implementation of the demolition and reconstruction of the towers with equal size and facilities. The said committee will meet within two weeks from today and decide the modalities for evacuation of the allottees, for demolition and reconstruction of the Towers in question.

b) The committee referred to above will have the power to make the appropriate choice of technology, including architectural and structural designs and a project impact assessment, for the demolition and reconstruction and to ensure that it does not affect the communities in the affected areas or the neighbourhood. This includes setting clear timelines for evacuation, demolition, and reconstruction to avoid unnecessary delays.

c) The committee will take all steps to pool the professional skills and expertise required to realise the objective of ensuring a faster evacuation, demolition, and reconstruction and shall make every endeavour to build consensus among all the stakeholders to speed the reconstruction process.

d) As soon as the authorities concerned in the State of Kerala receive applications regarding demolition or reconstruction, subject to meeting all the parameters, permission will be accorded without any unnecessary delay by treating this as a special case.

W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 79 2025:KER:66848

e) The AWHO will be further directed to disburse the amounts admitted in their counter affidavit, namely Rs.1,75,00,00,000/-, in the manner suggested by the committee.

f) AWHO will also disburse the amounts, if any ordered in the arbitration proceedings pending against the contractor the architect and the project director, less the actual amount of expenses incurred by AWHO for the arbitration proceedings. AWHO will also utilize insurance claims for the demolished structure, if any, to cover the costs.

g) The Committee may also collect the salvage value of the building materials and attempt to recover/use such materials for reconstruction wherever possible.

h) AWHO can also seek permission to construct additional floors/additional areas on the same site where the towers were situated, subject to the provisions of the relevant Building Rules, to enable them to offset the expenses incurred in the demolition and reconstruction.

i) The owners have occupied the building, used it, and even obtained rental income from 2018 to date. After reconstruction, they will be getting a brand new building. Consequently, the committee will also decide on the extra amount that can be collected from the owners before handing over the newly constructed building.

j) Apart from the amount/heads mentioned above, the W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 80 2025:KER:66848 AWHO shall bear the balance cost, for the process detailed above.

k) The AWHO will pay the owners of Tower B and C, who were residing as of 29.03.2024, Rs.21,000/- and Rs. 23,000/- respectively per month towards the expenses for alternate accommodation until reconstruction.

l) The committee will be empowered to decide any other matter that arises during evacuation, demolition, or reconstruction, subject to the provisions of law.

m) The committee while carrying out the activities as directed will take note of the suggestions made by the IISc in its report dated 10.08.2024 as well as the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Ors. v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and ors. [MANU/SC/1351/2024].

n) The committee will also be empowered to make such complaints against those responsible for creating a situation that led to the demolition of the towers in question.''

2. The aforementioned directions came out from a dispute arisen between the Residents Welfare Associations and AWHO regarding the quality of construction with regard to towers Nos.B and C. As umpteen number of defects like seepage, water leakage, etc., were complained of, which were W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 81 2025:KER:66848 addressed by appointing a sub-committee comprising of expert civil engineering officers from the corps of engineers appointed by the Residents Welfare Association, by collecting an independent report from Mar Athanasius College of Engineering, report of M/s Bureau Veritas India Pvt. Ltd., review report of BVIL by professors from IIT, Madras, and Mar Athanasius College of Engineering, and further inspections and investigative studies, report of the Government Engineering College, etc. All these reports pointed out that there were severe corrosion in the reinforced concrete members due to high chloride content, the sources of which were suspected to include mixing water, curing water, aggregates, or admixtures used during the construction. Even an attempt of retrofitting was also done but of no avail.

3. In order to ameliorate the grievances of the respective parties, during the pendency of the writ petition, learned single Bench passed an interim order to suggest the panel of three names of each persons to be appointed to explore the possibility of amicably settling the disputes and issues, and ultimately, the committee was constituted, resulted into the W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 82 2025:KER:66848 directions aforementioned.

4. Against the judgment of the learned Single Bench, twelve review petitions at the behest of the writ petitioners, including the Residents Welfare Associations, were preferred, seeking the review of the common judgment rendered in the lead case bearing W.P.(C)No.40178 of 2023 by raising certain points. Overcoming the objection of the maintainability of the review petition, the learned Single Bench took note of an affidavit dated 04.04.2025 of the District Collector, who is also convener of the committee, that the market rent as fixed in the original judgment as Rs.21,000/- to 23,000/- was less, as per the report of the Tahsildar, Kanayannur because 3 BHK apartments are accessible to a rent of Rs.35,000/- to 38,000/- along with additional service charges. Considering that aspect, in paragraph 7 of the judgment under review, the learned Single Judge modified the directions contained in condition No. (k) and increased the rate of rent from Rs.21,000/- and 23,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and 35,000/-. As far as the buy-back options are concerned, it was noticed that only 82 out of 264 allottees (now only ten) had offered a buy-back, and for that, it was observed W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 83 2025:KER:66848 that a comprehensive exercise is required to be conducted at the time when the demolition process is over, at any rate within a period of six months from the date of the judgment under review. So the condition No. (h) permitting the AWHO to put up additional floors was modified depending upon the decision to be taken by the committee on the size of the construction, and accordingly, condition Nos. (a) and (h) in the main judgment were modified and reviewed.

5. The time-line set out by the District Collector in the affidavit dated 21.05.2025 was directed to be scrupulously adhered to with a further direction to the District Collector to intimate the AWHO of the amount required at each stage, comprising of evacuation, demolition and reconstruction.

6. The prayer in the review petition No. 304 of 2025 for cancellation of the occupancy certificate was refused. It is in that background, these writ appeals have been filed on behalf of the writ petitioners as well as the AWHO.

7. Few of the grievances of the appellants have already been reflected in our order dated 27.08.2025. The same reads as under;

W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 84 2025:KER:66848 ''There is a request for adjournment on behalf of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Benny Garvasis representing Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO) as he is stated to be unwell.

2. Mr. T.C. Krishna is also representing the very same organization in different appeals.

3. After hearing the respective counsel on the previous date of hearing, i.e., on 23.08.2025, we had taken note of the contentions, which are already reflected in the order. Keeping in view the request for adjournment, it is submitted on behalf of the appellants, i.e., the Residents Welfare Association and the occupants of Towers B and C, that in the meeting of the committee constituted for the purpose of finalizing the modalities for vacating and other related aspects, chaired by the District Collector, the AWHO had agreed to pay one year's advance rent to the eligible owners and transfer the same by 28th August 2025, as a notice for vacation of the premises has already been issued directing all occupants to vacate the premises by 31 st August 2025. One of the contentions of the appellant was that the judgment under challenge had not taken into account the periodical increase in the rent of the premises, which all the eligible owners would be entitled to while seeking enhancement of rent in the review petition. It was further submitted that, for the sake of convenience and facilitation, the amount may be deposited in the escrow account.

W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 85 2025:KER:66848

4. Considering the predicament of the occupants, we hereby, as an interim measure, direct AWHO to deposit six months' rent by opening an escrow account in the name of either District Collector or any person nominated by him, as determined by the learned Single Bench in the order of review dated 25.06.2025, so that the occupants/eligible owners are not made to suffer in collecting the rent. Moreover, it would be convenient for AWHO to deposit the amount in one go. The determination/fixation of rent shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Let this exercise be undertaken on or before 03.09.2025.''

8. The aforementioned order was passed based upon the apprehension of the occupants/owners regarding the payment of the advance rent of one year, which was truncated to six months to be deposited in an escrow account in the name of the Collector and disbursed to the occupiers and the allottees subject to certain conditions. We have been informed that the order of this Court dated 27.08.2025 has been complied with and AWHO had credited an amount of Rs.2.97 crores in the Account No: 6819000100003316 of Punjab National Bank, Kalamassery, being the rent of 152 flat owners, i.e., B tower-74 flat owners for Rs.30,000/- each for six months and C tower -78 W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 86 2025:KER:66848 flat owners for Rs.35,000/- each for six months. We have also been informed that only 152 flat owners have given their willingness and a few of them, owing to their posting far from the area, have not been able to submit their willingness, and rent for such persons, on receipt of the willingness, will also be deposited.

9. The other grievances, which have not been addressed either in the original judgment or in the review, are enumerated herein below:

1. While increasing the rent of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.35,000/- for tower Nos. B and C, the learned Single Judge failed to notice the increase clause kept in the lease deed by a lessor is a common practice while letting out the premises on rent, for, the restoration of the flat and reconstruction would approximately take five years.

2. Condition No.(i) is not sustainable for, the committee has been given a power to decide on the extra amount that can be collected from the owners as the occupants of the building even after obtaining the W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 87 2025:KER:66848 rental income from 2018 will be getting a brand new building, is based on surmises and conjunctures.

3. Liberty to the AWHO to seek permission for construction of additional floors and additional areas subject to the provisions of the relevant building rules and allowing them to offset the expenses of demolition and construction though in the order under review left to the discretion of the Collector, is also not sustainable.

4. Exclusion of certain owners and occupiers from entitlement of the rent on account of non-occupation is also not based upon certain predicaments and subsequent events for, the officers on duty are allotted the official accommodation, and despite having allotted the flats in tower Nos.B and C, have also obtained the loan for making the payments and for offsetting the EMIs have rented out.

5. Similarly, the officers who would be demitting the office in future while occupying the Government accommodation will, of course, have to go back to W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 88 2025:KER:66848 their place of flats rented out on that occasion have also not been kept in view.

6. Many of the allottees have approached the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA for short) for claiming damages and various other benefits under the Act and owing to the decision of the writ petition, the claims have been dismissed, leaving the occupants to prefer an appeal, which has been allowed on the ground that the RERA had not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The said order of the appellate authority is under challenge before the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court. The AWHO cannot take the benefit of the decision of this Court, as the claim of compensation and other benefits cannot be taken out from the provisions of Section 18 and other provisions of the Act in view of the ratio decidendi out in the judgment of Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-

Operative v. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors [2004 (1) SCC 305].

7. The occupancy certificate has also been required W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 89 2025:KER:66848 to be suspended for tower Nos.B and C for, the allottees and occupiers, in view of the occupancy certificate in vogue, shall be burdened with the municipal taxes, particularly when there is a categoric finding that the occupancy certificate was obtained by deceit as no completion certificate was ever submitted.

8. The outer cap of Rs.175 crores for reconstruction of towers B and C cannot be fixed, as over a period of time, the cost of construction increased manifold, and may result into a compromise on the quality of the material, though it is clarified, has given a handle to the AWHO to recover the cost of the rent in case the AWHO lands up shelling out an extra amount in raising the construction. The role of AWHO should be only of promoters and not of the owners, as the ownership of the land vests with the occupants and the allottees.

10. On the other hand Mr.Sundaresan, the learned Assistant Solicitor General assisted by the learned Senior W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 90 2025:KER:66848 Counsel Mr.T.C Krishna,and Mr. Benny Garvasis the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the AWHO submitted that the entire flats were not occupied by the owners/occupiers, therefore, the AWHO cannot be burdened with the liability to pay the rent as determined by the learned Single Bench. There is no rationale or basis for increasing the rate of rent from Rs.21,000/23,000/- in the original order to Rs.30,000/Rs.35,000/- while entertaining the review petition. The parameters of the review petition, as enshrined under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, were conspicuously wanting. In such circumstances, the review petition was liable to be dismissed outright.

11. Even on merits, it was argued that the AWHO has no intention to raise additional floors and additional area, as the ownership of the flat always vests with the occupants. It will truncate their ownership, which will be creating multifariousness of litigation.

12. Though the learned Single Judge has fixed the amount of Rs.175 crores as suggested by the committee, it cannot be an exact figure, as over a period of time, there can be an increase. W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 91 2025:KER:66848 However, the AWHO has no issues with regard to increase in the construction expenses.

13. The occupancy certificate alleged to have been held to be obtained by fraud in the absence of submission of the completion certificate is in respect of all three towers, i.e., A, B, and C, therefore, it cannot be cancelled for the purposes of the occupants and occupiers of towers No. B and C to avoid the payment of municipal tax. At the best, vis-à-vis the occupants who have to vacate the premises of towers B and C, can be kept in abeyance.

14. The occupants have not vacated the premises, therefore, the amount of rent for six months deposited in the account of the District Collector should not be disbursed, as it will unnecessarily incur an extra liability on the AWHO. The actual amount of expense, as stated in the original judgment, is liable to be modified for the reason that the AWHO cannot be burdened to pay off the extra amount of compensation received in the arbitration proceedings against the contractor towards the construction of three towers to be passed on to the occupiers.

W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 92 2025:KER:66848

15. The increase in the rent from Rs.21,000/23,000/- is not based upon any concrete material, therefore, could not have been modified by increasing to Rs.30,000/35,000/-.

16. The direction with regard to the timeline cannot be strictly followed, as nobody can predict the future. Though specific timeline has been fixed and directions have been issued to adhere to the timeline fixed by the committee, it will unnecessarily entail the extra expenditure and liability upon the AWHO towards the payment of rent. Instead, the committee may be directed to fix the timeline to avoid any further or extra liability.

17. The occupants/owners cannot avail the alternative remedies, by approaching the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as RERA for short) or various appellate authorities.

18. As the entire matter has already been pondered by the learned Single Bench, the directions contained in paragraph 11 in the order of the review petition cannot be complied with, as AWHO is no longer the owner of the property, therefore the directions are required to be modified. The statutory W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 93 2025:KER:66848 applications have to be made by the occupiers or through the committee.

19. In rebuttal, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the occupiers and owners, including the resident welfare association, submitted that their undertaking may be recorded that they will, on or before 17.09.2025, vacate the premises so that the demolition process can be initiated at the earliest.

20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.

21. We have already extracted the directions contained in the judgment. However, in the review petitions certain modifications have been made to the clauses (a), (h), and (k) primarily. For the sake of brevity, paragraphs 7 to 11 of the review petitions causing the changes and giving observations are required to be extracted for the adjudication of the issue.

''7. Considering that local inspections reveal the rent for similar accommodations is higher than the amounts fixed by the court, and taking into account the designation and standard of living of the allottees, who will be paying rent for at least four years, I deem it appropriate to modify condition No.(k) in the judgment. The rent will now be enhanced to Rs.30,000/- and Rs.35,000/-, replacing the W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 94 2025:KER:66848 previous amounts of Rs.21,000/- and Rs.23,000/- for owners of Towers B and C, respectively. Accordingly, the direction in condition No. (k) is modified and reviewed as above.

8. The review petitions also seek clarity regarding condition No. (k), which directed the AWHO to pay the stipulated rent to owners of Tower B and C, residing as of 29.03.2024. As clarified earlier by this court, the said condition should not be interpreted as excluding the allottees who were temporarily not in occupation on that date. Rather, it excluded those who had not commenced residence and those who had their flats rented out.

9. The apprehension raised in the review petitions regarding the cost of demolition and reconstruction is misplaced as the judgment under review has already held AWHO liable for the entire cost for demolition and reconstruction, subject to the other conditions therein.

10. Regarding the buy-back option, it is noted from the minutes of the meeting held on April 22, 2025, that the residents' association informed that 82 out of 264 allottees have expressed interest in the buy-back scheme. In light of this information, the committee must reevaluate/reassess the scale of the construction, considering the number of allottees who wish to proceed with reconstruction as well as the amount to be offered to W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 95 2025:KER:66848 those opting for the buy-back. This comprehensive exercise, factoring in all relevant aspects, must be completed by the time the demolition process is over and at any rate, within six months from today. Resultantly, the committee shall not be constrained by direction No. (a) to construct towers of equal size and facilities. Condition No.

(h) permitting the AWHO to put up additional floors will also depend on the decision to be taken by the committee on the size of the construction. Accordingly, conditions Nos. (a) and (h) are modified and reviewed to the above extent.

11. The timeline set out by the District Collector in his affidavit dated 21.05.2025, reflecting the decision of the committee, shall be scrupulously adhered to. The District Collector, in his capacity as the Convener of the committee, shall ensure that all the members of the committee comply fully with the directions issued, including any instructions called for. Needless to say that the AWHO will make all the statutory applications on behalf of the committee.''

22. First of all, we would like to take up the contention with regard to the cancellation of the occupancy certificate, which has been held to be obtained by fraud in the absence of submission for the completion certificate. Be that as it may. W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 96 2025:KER:66848 Even if the court has not given any finding with regard to the cancellation of the occupancy certificate either in the original judgment or in the review petition, fact remains the occupancy certificate has been issued for three towers, i.e., A, B, and C. The controversy involved in the present writ appeals and the writ petitions was only with regard to the towers B and C, which have to be demolished, and therefore the occupancy certificate issued for all three buildings cannot be canceled, at the best to defray the unnecessary expenses towards the municipal taxes upon the allottees and occupiers, as they would be vacating the premises and re-occupying only after the completion of the towers B and C, we hereby direct that the occupancy certificate issued in respect of two towers vis-à-vis towers No. B and C shall be kept in abeyance till towers B and C are reconstructed and occupied. In other words, it will come into operation only after issuing a certification, fit for occupation.

23. As far as the direction No.(a) is concerned, already a committee chaired by the District Collector has been constituted, the details of which are given hereunder:

W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 97 2025:KER:66848

1. District Collector.

2. Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings.

3. Assistant Executive Engineer, Thripunithura Municipality.

4. District Town Planner.

5. Controller of Explosive.

6. Kanayannur Thahasildar.

7. Village Officer, Nadama.

8. Chandarkunj Army Tower Apartment Owners Association representatives.

9. Structural Experts.

10. District Fire Officer.

11. Other concerned officials.

24. We are in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Bench in the review petition regarding the increase of rent from Rs.21,000/23,000/- to Rs.30,000/35,000/-, as it is based upon the recommendations of the committee headed by the District Collector. However, while modifying the condition No. (k), the learned Single Bench, in our considered view, omitted to notice the periodical increase of the lease deeds as the normal practice as and when the premises are taken on rent, on execution of agreement/lease deed between the lessor and lessee. Thus, we hereby modify the directions contained in clause (k) and direct that on submission of the lease deeds W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 98 2025:KER:66848 entered into by the occupier and allottees to the committee, the committee will fix the periodical increase, and any direction issued by the committee shall be binding upon the AWHO.

25. The condition in the review petition, disentitling the occupants from giving on rent who have not occupied the flats, in our considered view, is also a matter of concern for the reason that while reviewing the order, the learned Single Bench did not envision certain aspects that are demonstrated herein below;

1. Any Army, Naval or Air Force personnel serving at a higher post is allotted a government accommodation, and it is not discernible as to whether such person has, for the purpose of the allotment, paid the entire amount as upfront or has taken a loan. Obviously, when the loan is taken from the financial institution, it will carry equated monthly installments. In order to set off the EMI, a person who has been allotted a flat would definitely earn an income by renting it out. Therefore, such persons cannot be denied the rent as determined in the review petition at the rate of Rs.30,000/35,000. However, we W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 99 2025:KER:66848 make it clear that the said occupier/owner shall submit the proof to the committee with regard to the payment of the loan to the financial institution and the payment of the EMIs for entitlement of rent.

2. When an officer who has been allotted a flat has not put it on rent and is not getting any income but retired and needs to occupy it, but in the meantime the building will be demolished and had to take the premises on rent; therefore cannot be held to be disentitled to the rent. However, that will also be subject to the decision of the committee on submission of the documents with regard to the demission of the office as well as taking the premises on lease/rent.

3. Thus, the direction with regard to the exclusion of the occupants/occupier who had not commenced residence cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

4. The learned Senior Counsel representing the AWHO has made a statement that they will not be W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 100 2025:KER:66848 confining themselves to the figure of Rs.175 crore fixed as the cost of construction on the basis of the report. The court could not have quantified the expenses with regard to the construction of the tower Nos.B and C to the tune of Rs. 175 crores, as that estimate had not been fructified. As per the submissions, it has come on record that the estimate reveals expenses of Rs. 211,49,17,000 [Two Hundred and Eleven Crores Forty-Nine Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Only] approximately. Therefore, direction No. (e) is also modified. It is made clear that AWHO is bound to incur all the expenses, which during the period of construction and completion have/or may increase.

5. As far as the direction No. (f) of the main judgment is concerned, the said directions cannot be permitted to be sustain for the reason that the AWHO has already filed an arbitration case against the contractor and must have claimed element of rent and if not can always do so. Therefore, in view of the W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 101 2025:KER:66848 pending claims against the contractor, any extra amount received cannot be permitted to be passed on to the allottees/occupiers. So the said direction is hereby modified to the above extent.

6. As far as the condition No. (i) is concerned, the same cannot be permitted to sustain, as it will create an unnecessary multifariousness and burden upon the occupiers and owners, as they have already suffered mental harassment, accordingly set aside.

7. As far as the contention of the AWHO with regard to the non-maintainability of the claim set up by the occupiers and the owners before the RERA/District Collector/other statutory authorities claiming compensation and various other expenses, we do not accept such argument for the reason that it is an additional remedy, as the writ court under Article 226 while exercising the power of jurisdiction cannot determine the damages in terms of money, as it requires detailed evidence and other materials, and that part has not been discussed or touched upon W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 102 2025:KER:66848 much less claimed in the writ petition, therefore, we hereby reject the argument of the appellant AWHO in not permitting the owners and occupiers to pursue the remedy before the District Collector or RERA or other statutory authorities in accordance with law.

8. Since the AWHO is a promoter, a burden cannot be passed on to the occupiers/owners to move a statutory application for taking the permission for the reconstruction of the buildings. It is the prime duty of the AWHO to make an application, and if any application is made by the AWHO, all the competent authorities shall entertain the application without any objection.

9. As far as the condition No.(h) is concerned, it permits the AWHO to earn extra income by adding additional floors and additional areas. In view of the submissions made by the learned senior counsels representing the AWHO that AWHO do not have any intention to do the same, condition No.(h) is hereby set aside.

W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 103 2025:KER:66848

26. We hereby also make it clear that in case any of the occupiers/owners surrender the flats, the AWHO will be at liberty to sell them at the market rate.

27. With the aforementioned clarifications, all the writ appeals stand disposed of. In case of any further clarification, we permit the committee to entertain such application and take a call on that at the earliest.

W.A.No.1922 of 2025

As far as W.A. No. 1922 of 2025 is concerned, it has been filed by Adv. Ciby George, who is also a member of the Residents Welfare Association. The main grievance of Mr. Ciby George is with regard to the fixation of the rent in the review petition, as it is much less than the market value. During the course of the hearing, we confronted Mr. Ciby George as to whether he can independently raise the afore grievance, being a member of the Residents Welfare Association; for which he had no answer. Hence we are of the view cannot espouse such a grievance independently. Accordingly, his claim vis-à-vis the increase in rent than fixed by the committee is hereby rejected. The writ appeal qua this point is hereby dismissed. In the afore W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 104 2025:KER:66848 circumstances, Mr. Ciby George is also directed to vacate the premises within seven days, alike the other Residents of the Association.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE Sd/-

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Dxy W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 105 2025:KER:66848 APPENDIX OF WA 1922/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 04.7.2025 IN WP 717 OF 2025 W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 106 2025:KER:66848 APPENDIX OF WA 1844/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R5(A) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT R 5(A) IN R.P.336/2025 EXHIBIT R5(C) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT R5(C) W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 107 2025:KER:66848 APPENDIX OF WA 1886/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 10/08/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (IISC), BENGALURU BEFORE THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.971/2018 OF THRIPUNITHURA SRO .

W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 108 2025:KER:66848 APPENDIX OF WA 2011/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P1 EXHIBIT R5(C) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. R5(C) ANNEXURE R5(A) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE R5(A) W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 109 2025:KER:66848 APPENDIX OF WA 2043/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P2 TRUE LEGIBLE COPY OF EXT. P2 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE LEGIBLE COPY OF EXT. P5 EXHIBIT P17 TYPED COPY OF EXT. P17 EXHIBIT R5(C) TYPED COPY OF EXT. R5(C) EXHIBIT R7(A) TRUE LEGIBLE COPY OF EXT. R7(A) W.A.No.1922 of 2025 & con. Cases 110 2025:KER:66848 APPENDIX OF WA 2086/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P5 TYPED COPY OF NEWS ARTICLE OF INDIAN EXPRESS DATED 10.01.2023 EXHIBIT P6 TYPED COPY OF NEWS ARTICLE OF TIME OF INDIA DATED 03.07.2023 EXHIBIT P7 TYPED COPY OF NEWS ARTICLE OF TIME OF INDIA DATED 08.11.2023 EXHIBIT P36 ENLARGED COPY OF EXT. P36 EXHIBIT P65 ENLARGED COPY OF EXT. P65 EXHIBIT R5(C) CLEAR AND LEGIBLE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.05.2021 FROM THE RWA EXHIBIT R5(E) CLEAR AND LEGIBLE COPY OF THE REPORT OF BVIL DATED 21.10.2022 EXHIBIT R5(F) ENLARGED COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.08.2023 FROM THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT R5(K) ENLARGED COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE RWA ON 31.08.2023 EXHIBIT R5(Q) ENLARGED COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.12.2023 FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R5(R) ENLARGED COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE RWA EXHIBIT R5(S) CLEAR AND LEGIBLE COPY OF EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 05.12.2023 FROM THE RWA EXHIBIT R5(U) CLEAR AND LEGIBLE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 02.11.2023 EXHIBIT R5(W) CLEAR AND LEGIBLE COPY OF THECOMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT R6(E) TYPED COPY EXHIBIT R6(I) TYPED COPY

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court