Annamma Mathew v. Secretary, Ranny-Pazhavangadi Grama Panchayath

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/14TH SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 16805 of 2014 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- ANNAMMA MATHEW, AGED 78 YEARS W/O LATE K.C. MATHEW, KANDANATTU HOUSE, RANNY P.O PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT BY ADVS.SMT.P.V.KOCHUTHRESIA SRI.P.MOHAMMED ALI SMT.M.P.MARY RESPONDENT(S): - ------------------- 1. SECRETARY, RANNY-PAZHAVANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATHU, RANNY P.O, PIN-674337 2. JACOB ABRAHAM @ ANU VALANJUMTHURUTHIL, RANNI- PAZHAVANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH VICE PRESIDENT RANNI P.O, PIN-674337 R1 BY SRI.C.S.MANILAL, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16805 of 2014 (A) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------ EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF K.C MATHEW. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 10-02-2014. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE FAST FOOD LICENSE OF K.C MATHEW FOR 201314. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RENTAL RECEIPTS OF MAY & JUNE 2014. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE PETITION DATED 10-02-2014. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10-02-2014. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY INTIMATION DATED 06-03-2014 FROM THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 09-04-2014 FROM 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ----------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ========================== W.P.(C). No.16805 OF 2014 ==========================** Dated this the 5[th] day of August, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a septuagenarian. Her husband Sri.K.C Mathew took on lease a room and a hall bearing Nos.8 and 2 respectively of the building bearing No.IX/866 belonging to the Ranni-Pazhavangadi Grama Panchayat. Her husband died on 18.12.2013. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application before the first respondent for renewal of license in favour of herself and her son. Virtually, the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering Ext.P2 application. Earlier, the petitioner applied for a copy of rental agreement executed between her deceased husband and the panchayat, under the Right to Information Act. Ext.P8 is the piece of information given to the petitioner pursuant to the receipt of the said application. The petitioner filed the captioned writ petition seeking quashment of **W.P.(C).16805/2014** 2 Ext.P8 and issuance of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from ousting the petitioner and her family from the aforesaid rooms and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to renew the rental agreement and license in respect of the aforesaid room and hall in favour of herself and her son. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent. Though the Vice President of the said panchayat is arrayed in the writ petition in his personal capacity, having regard to the allegations raised against him in this writ petition, I do not think that they are sufficient to constitute serious allegations of malafides to persuade this Court to call upon him to resist the case and therefore, it is unnecessary to issue notice to the second respondent in this proceedings. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent, I am of the view that this writ **W.P.(C).16805/2014** 3 petition can be disposed of with directions. The learned standing counsel for the first respondent submitted that the lease period pertaining to the aforesaid room and hall had expired on 31.3.2014. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to canvass the position that what is involved is a license, in view of the failure on the part of the petitioner to produce the indenture I am not in a position to determine whether the indenture is a lease or license. True that the petitioner is having a grievance relating non-issuance of the copy of the rental agreement executed between her deceased husband and the panchayat. I do not think it necessary to call for the first respondent to produce the same, firstly, in view of the absence of any case for the petitioner that the period of license has not expired and secondly, a license is merely personal and it does not run with the land. A license is generally revocable at the will of the grantor. In the contextual situation, it is very pertinent to note the statement of the petitioner in Ground B in regard to the rental agreement. It reads thus:- **W.P.(C).16805/2014** 4 On 10.2.14 the petitioner has applied by Ext.P2 to renew the rental agreement and the license in the joint names of herself land elder son Jacob Mathew.” 3. It is thus obvious that the petitioner herself admits that the period of rental agreement as also the license has already expired lest she need not have applied for renewal. Thus, the statement of the learned standing counsel that the lease period expired can only to be taken as the true statement relating the period of rental agreement. One of the prayers of the petitioner is also for a direction to renew the rental agreement. The petitioner did not have a case that she had submitted an application for renewal within the statutorily prescribed period on the ground of her being a legal heir of the licensee. On receipt of Ext.P2 application, taking note of the expiry of the lease period, notice was sent in the name of Sri.K.C.Mathew and it was only thereafter that the first respondent came to know about the death of the said lessee, it is submitted on instructions by the learned **W.P.(C).16805/2014** 5 standing counsel. Since the period of lease had expired, the panchayat is proposing to conduct an auction of the said room and hall is the further submission made by the learned standing counsel on instructions. The petitioner could not bring to my attention any provision in the relevant statute that makes it mandatory for the first respondent to grant renewal of the rental agreement merely because it was asked for. In the said context, it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in **Soman v. Kottarakkara Grama Panchayat [2003** **(2) KLT 1007]** . In the said decision, this Court held that when rooms belonging to a panchayat are rented out for a fixed period, the occupants got no right to continue in occupation after the period. The very prayer of the petitioner would reveal that the period fixed had expired and that is why the petitioner seeks for a direction for its renewal. When the panchayat took the decision to conduct fresh auction in the light of the decision and on the failure of the petitioner to bring to my attention any provision disabling the panchayat from **W.P.(C).16805/2014** 6 taking such a decision I do not find any reason to interfere with such a decision. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sufficient time may be granted to the petitioner find out another place and to shift the shop from the room and hall and also to remove the improvements made in the room and hall in question. I am of the view that it is a very reasonable submission. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that granting such time for the petitioner may not stand against the first respondent to go on with the proceedings to conduct auction of the said room and hall in the meanwhile. Taking note of the aforesaid rival submissions, I am inclined to order the first respondent to grant three months time to the petitioner, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to shift the shop from the room and hall in question and to remove the improvements made thereon. In the meanwhile, it will be open to the first respondent to conduct auction and complete it within the above stipulated time, in accordance with law. Such a course of action **W.P.(C).16805/2014** 7 would be beneficial to the petitioner as she could also participate in the auction and in case she becomes the successful bidder, the present contingency to vacate the room and the hall would not arise, thereafter, during the permissible period. However, if the petitioner is not a successful bidder, the petitioner shall have to give vacant possession of the room and hall within the above stipulated period itself. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to give vacant possession within the said stipulated time despite the failure to succeed in the auction, it will be open to the first respondent to give effect to this verdict and to get the room and hall vacated. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **spc/** **W.P.(C).16805/2014** 8 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** 9 ## **W.P.(C).16805/2014** **JUDGMENT September, 2010**