SREEKALA v. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944 ``` ## **`W.P.(C)NO.23675 OF 2020`** ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` SREEKALA, AGED 58 YEARS, ``` ``` W/O. LATE (SUKUMARAN)** (CORRECTED), SREEKALA SANTHI VANAM, KADATHOOR, K.S. PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690544. ``` ``` ** THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER’S HUSBAND SHOWN 'SUKUMARAN' IN THE CAUSE TITLE IS CORRECTED AS 'P.SASIDHARAN' AS PER ORDER DATED 16-11- 2021 IN IA 1/2021 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.B.SAHASRANAMAN T.S.HARIKUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003.`** - **`2 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690544.`** - **`3 THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, HARIPAD - 695003.`** - **`4 THE ADMINISTRATVE OFFICER, OACHIRA DEVASWOM, KARUNAGAPPALLY GROUP,`** 2 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 ## **`KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690544`** - **`5 ADDL.R5: THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695003 (IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07-10-2022)`** ``` ** (THE DESCRIPTION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU CORRECTED AS -TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003. AS PER ORDER DATED 07-10-2022) ``` ``` BY ADV SRI. G. SANTHOSH KUMAR (P). ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 noticed dated 30.10.2022 issued by the 4[th] respondent Administrative Officer of Oachira Devaswom under Karunagapally Group of the Travancore Devaswom Board, which is one issued in terms of Ext.P7(2) communication dated 27.10.2020 of the Executive Engineer, Estate Division, addressed to the 2[nd] respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Karunagappally, whereby, the 4[th] respondent Administrative Officer is required to evict the petitioner from shop room Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the 1[st] floor of Oachira Devaswom Shopping Complex. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept rent in respect of the aforesaid shop rooms in Oachira Devaswom Shopping Complex, which are the subject matter in Ext.P8 reply dated 02.11.2020. 2. On 29.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission along with connected matter, this Court admitted the matter on file and the official respondents were 4 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 directed to file counter on or before 19.02.2021. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 22.12.2020, which is followed by an additional counter affidavit dated 09.06.2022. Along with the additional counter affidavit, the respondents have placed on record Ext.R1(a) specimen copy of rent calculation in Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR). In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the monthly rent of the shop rooms in question are revised at the rate of Rs.11,913/-, with effect from April, 2020. 4. On 30.09.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration along with the connected matter, the learned counsel on both sides were directed to address **T. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board [2022 (4) KLT 798]** . 5. On 14.10.2022, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the late husband of the petitioner was not a tenant of any shop rooms in Oachira Devaswom Shopping Complex. On the other hand, he was a sub tenant, in the shop rooms leased out to one Sathish 5 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 Kumar. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said issue has already considered by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment in W.P.(C)No.22031 of 2010. Therefore, Registry was directed to list this matter along with W.P.(C)No.22031 of 2010. 6. On 17.11.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order; “In terms of the order of this Court dated 08.11.2022, this writ petition is listed today along with the Judges papers in W.P.(C)No.22031 of 2010. That writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 29.06.2011, whereby the Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to file a report before Registrar (General), after conducting re auction of the shop rooms in question, within a period of three months from the date of that judgment. In the said judgment, it was made clear that in case there is any failure on the part of the Board in conducting re auction of the shop rooms, this Court would consider whether the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Executive Officer are personally liable for any loss referable to the delay. Registry to verify whether the Travancore Devaswom Board has filed a report before Registrar (General), in terms of the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment.” 7. On 21.11.2022, when this writ petition came up 6 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board pointed out the pendency of W.P.(C)Nos.6480 of 2022, 2809 of 2022 and 4007 of 2022 filed by the Devaswom employees challenging the proceedings, whereby they are held liable for the loss suffered by the Board on account of their failure to conduct re-auction of the shop rooms in question. 8. From the Judge’s papers in W.P.(C)No.22031 of 2010, we notice that though a report in terms of the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment dated 29.06.2011 was filed in that writ petition along with I.A.No.3649 of 2012, after serving a copy of the same to Adv.P.B. Sahasranaman on 06.03.2012 that application was never brought up before the Bench. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondent 1 to 4 and the additional 5[th] respondent. 10. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the right of the petitioner’s late husband P. Sasidharan to occupy the shop rooms in question has already been decided in Ext.P1 judgment in W.P.(C)No.22031 7 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 of 2010, in paragraph 4 of that judgment, the Division Bench found that he has no shred of legal right to continue to cling on to possession of the said shop rooms in question. By that judgment, he was permitted to continue in occupation for a period of three months, within which time the Board was directed to conduct re-auction of the right to hold the said shop rooms under lease or licence, as the case may be. 11. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. As per subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Act, substituted by the Kerala Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956, Part I of the Act shall extend to Travancore, Part II of the Act shall extend to Cochin and Part III of the Act shall extend to the whole of the State of Kerala, excluding the Malabar District. 12. Chapter II of the Act deals with the Travancore Devaswom. Section 3 of the Act deals with vesting of administration in Board. As per Section 3, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of Hindu 8 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 Religious Endowments and all their properties and funds as well as the fund constituted under the Devaswom Proclamation, 1097 M.E. and the surplus fund constituted under the Devaswom (Amendment) Proclamation, 1122 M.E. which were under the management of the Ruler of Travancore prior to the first day of July, 1949, except the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, Sree Pandaravaka properties and all other properties and funds of the said temple, and the management of all institutions which were under the Devaswom Department shall vest in the Travanore Devaswom Board. 13. Section 4 of the Act deals with constitution of the Travancore Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section 4, the Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to hold and acquire properties for and on behalf of the incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments under the management of the Board. 14. Section 15 of the Act deals with vesting of jurisdiction in the Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 9 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 15, subject to the provisions of Chapter III of Part I, all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to or exercised by the Ruler of Travancore prior to the first day of July, 1949, in respect of Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Endowments shall vest in and be exercised by the Board in accordance with the provisions of this Act. As per sub-section (2) of Section 15, the Board shall exercise all powers of direction, control and supervision over the incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Endowments under their jurisdiction. 15. Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 15A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in 10 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 the temples for the devotees. Section 16 of the Act deals with supervision and control by the Board. As per Section 16, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part I of the Act, exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department. 16. Section 24 of the Act deals with maintenance of Devaswoms, etc., out of Devaswom Fund. As per Section 24, the Board shall, out of the Devaswom Fund constituted under Section 25, maintain the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I [i.e. incorporated Devaswoms], keep in a state of good repair the temples, buildings, and other appurtenances thereto, administer the said Devaswoms in accordance with recognised usages, make contributions to other Devaswoms in or outside the State and meet the expenditure for the customary religious ceremonies and may provide for the educational upliftment, social and cultural advancement and economic betterment of the Hindu community. 17. Section 27 of the Act deals with Devaswom properties. As per Section 27, immovable properties entered or classed in the revenue records as Devaswom Vaga or 11 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 Devaswom Poramboke and such other Pandaravaga lands as are in the possession or enjoyment of the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I after the 30[th] Meenam, 1097 corresponding to the 12[th] April, 1922, shall be dealt with as Devaswom properties. The provisions of the Land Conservancy Act of 1091 shall be applicable to Devaswom lands as in the case of Government lands. 18. Section 31 of the Act deals with management of Devaswoms. As per Section 31, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. 19. In **M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [(1979) 2 SCC 65]** in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is the duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the 12 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 ## manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not therefore occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus; “4. There is some controversy on the question whether defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs. 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs.21,500, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid 13 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.” 14 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 (underline supplied) ## 20. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom** **Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/ employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fences eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. 21. In **Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [(2013) 3 KLT 132]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in **A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** 15 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 22. In **Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642]** [judgment dated 09.02.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 2254 of 2022] a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, was dealing with a case in which Kuthaka right for running Aymanam Sri. 16 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 Narasimha-swami Auditorium (sadyalayam) constructed by the Travancore Devaswom Board was auctioned for a period of two years from 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2021, for Rs. 2,41,000/-. The average monthly income generated from the said building constructed by the Travancore Devaswom Board by spending several lakhs of rupees was only Rs. 10,000/-. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in **M.V. Ramasubbiar [(1979) 2 SCC 65]** this Court held that, while auctioning the right for running that sadyalayam, the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income to the Board is generated from the said building. In case of any default committed by the successful bidder in remitting the balance auction amount, electricity charges or any other statutory dues payable as per the tender conditions, the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have to take prompt action against such bidder and the said fact has to be promptly reported to the concerned officer in the Estate Division of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 23. In **Abu K.S. [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642]** the writ petitioner, the successful bidder, remitted only 50% of 17 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 the auction amount on 18.07.2019. Though he had defaulted payment of the balance amount of Rs. 1,20,500/-, he was permitted to continue to occupy the sadyalayam, even beyond the period of auction, i.e., 31.07.2021. The concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have not taken any action against the successful bidder till the order of this Court dated 01.02.2022, whereby they were directed to take over possession of the sadyalayam forthwith, if found necessary with police assistance. In such circumstances, in the said decision, this Court deprecated in the strongest words the conduct of the concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer and also the concerned officers in the Estate Division of the Travancore Devaswom Board in taking no action against the successful bidder, who was a defaulter. In the said decision, this Court found that, the concerned officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board have not shown reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs. Since, such irregularities in the conduct of auction for running auditoriums/sadyalayams in the temples under the 18 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 management of the Travancore Devaswom Board cannot be permitted in future, this Court directed Registry to initiate _suo motu_ proceedings in the that matter. 24. In **Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [ILR (2022) 1 Ker 1091 : 2022 SCC** **OnLine Ker 611]** a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, was dealing with the Kuthaka right for sale of pooja items in Valliamkavu Devi Temple under the Management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. In the said decision, this Court held that, the properties of deities and temples are required to be protected and safeguarded from usurpation or encroachment in any manner. Persons entrusted with the duty to manage such properties should be vigilant to prevent such usurpation or encroachment. When such usurpation or encroachment is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned, such acts of ‘fences eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The officers concerned and also the devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable 19 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 institutions from usurpation or encroachment, wrongful claims or misappropriation. Therefore, the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Administrative Officer shall take stern action against those who have defaulted payment of instalments in respect of the Kuthaka items, in violation of the tender conditions, if found necessary, after seeking police assistance. If any such request is received, it is the duty of the concerned Station House Officer to render necessary assistance to the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner or the Administrative Officer, in order to protect and safeguard the properties of deities and temples from usurpation or encroachment in any manner. 25. In **V. Muraleedharan Nair v. Travancore Devaswom Board** [Judgment dated 25.11.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 32975 of 2015] the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which the writ petitioners were occupiers of different shop rooms in a shopping complex owned by the Travancore Devaswom Board. As per Exhibit P8 series of orders, they have been required to enhance the security deposit and the amounts to be paid for occupation. 20 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 Before the Division Bench, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Ext.P7 judgment dated 07.10.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 25586 of 2012. The Division Bench noticed that, the said judgment was issued essentially on consent of the Board and the concession made by the Board was only for renewal for a period upto 2012. Therefore, Exhibit P7 judgment is no answer for any demand that the Travancore Devaswom Board may make in relation to occupation charges for buildings or rooms belonging to and under its control. The Division noticed that, it cannot also ignore the pristine principle that all Devaswom lands vest in Deities and Travancore Devaswom Board are essentially trustees. Therefore, the action of trustees cannot be equated to that of mere landlords. The best interest of the Devaswoms under the control of the Devaswom Boards would be subserved only if income is generated. 26. In **T. Krishnakumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board [2022 (5) KHC SN 8 : 2022 (4) KLT 798]** , a Division Bench of this Court, in which both of us were parties, held that in view of the law laid down by this Court in **Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2022 SCC** 21 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 **OnLine Ker 1642]** , relying on the decision of the Apex Court in **M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [(1979) 2 SCC 65]** , while leasing out the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said buildings. In such transactions, the Board and its officials have to show reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs. The action of the Board as a trustee cannot be equated to that of mere landlord. The best interest of the Devaswoms under the control of the Board would be subserved only if income is generated. 27. In **T. Krishnakumar [2022 (5) KHC SN 8]** , the Division Bench noticed that the major source of revenue of Cochin Devaswom Board is the income received by way of offering by the devotees, the amount received from Vazhipadu and the revenue generated through the auction of temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the temples and also the rental income generated from the buildings owned by the respective Devaswoms. Therefore, while dealing with the buildings 22 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 owned by the Devaswoms, Cochin Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said building. In such transactions, the Board and its officials have to show reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs, by ensuring that the lease rental or licence fee of the buildings owned by the Devaswoms is not lower than the prevailing market rent. The action of the Board in demanding lease rental or licence fee for the buildings owned by the Devaswoms taking into consideration the prevailing market rent cannot be termed as an action of the Board demanding - exhorbitant or rack rent, since, while leasing out the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said buildings. Any default committed by the tenant or licensee of the buildings owned by the Devaswoms in payment of the monthly rent or licence fee, electricity charges, water charges, statutory dues, etc. has to be dealt with appropriately, so also the use of the building for another purpose or making material alteration or addition to the building. In view of the provisions under Section 73A of the 23 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 Act, Cochin Devaswom Board is duty bound to monitor whether its administrative staff and employees in the Maramath wing are functioning properly, by taking prompt action against any such default or violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed or the licence deed. 28. In **H.N.Vijayan v. Devaswom Commissioner and another [2022/KER/50584]** (order dated 19.09.2022 in DBP.No.47 of 2020) a Divison Bench of this Court in which both of us were parties, was dealing with a case in which the petitioner/complainant, who is the occupant of shop room Nos.2 and 3 in Valiyakulam Shopping Complex owned by Mavelikkara Devaswom under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, is in occupation of an area measuring 18m x 4m, in the backyard of shop room bearing Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5, as the godown of his provision store. He is in occupation of the shop room Nos.2 and 3 since June, 1999. Based on an application made by him, by the proceedings of the Devaswom Commissioner, the concerned Assistant Engineer was directed to identify the area for godown. After completing the construction, as per the instructions of the connered Assistant Engineer, he has 24 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 to execute an agreement with the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, agreeing to pay the monthly rent fixed by the Board. He constructed the structure for godown and occupied the same from 01.09.2001 onwards, without paying any amount towards rent or executing an agreement with the Board. By Annexure A5 request dated 22.05.2017, the petitioner agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.650/- per month with arrears of rent from 01.09.2001 onwards. According to the petitioner, since the monthly rent of the godown was not fixed and the agreement was not executed, he submitted Annexure A2 to A4 requests. As discernible from Annexure A6 notice dated 18.05.2018 of the Sub Group Officer, Mavelikkara, the Board fixed the monthly rent of the temporary structure for godown as Rs.650/-, with effect from 01.09.2001, with 10% increase every year. The demand made in Annexure A8 notice dated 10.02.2019 of the Sub Group Officer is at the rate of Rs.650/- per month from 01.09.2001, with 10% annual increase, with penal interest at the rate of 18%. It was followed by Annexure A11 notice dated 08.04.2019. As evidenced by Annexure A12 receipt dated 09.04.2019 and Annexure A13 receipt dated 25 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 13.04.2019, the petitioner had already remitted a total sum of Rs.3,73,793/-, towards the demand made in Annexure A11 notice. 29. In **H.N.Vijayan** , it was stated in the counter affidavit dated 05.07.2021 of the Travancore Devaswom Board that, the Board after considering the plinth area report of the Assistant Engineer, Mavelikkara and the report dated 30.03.2021 of the Chief Engineer (General) granted permission to realise rent as per Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR), arrear amount and penal interest at the rate of 18% in respect of shop room No.1 (K.Santhosh), shop room Nos.14, 15 and 16 (K.Sasidharan), shop room No.20, 21 and 22 (V.G.Rajesh Kumar), shop room No.28 (Krishnakumar). Considering the said report, the Board fixed DSR rent and granted permission to realise Rs.1,88,606/K.Santhosh, Rs.3,99,113/- from K.Sasidharan, Rs.17,406/from V.C.Rajeshkumar and Rs.9,879/- from Krishnakumar. The said fact was communicated to the Chief Engineer (General), vide Annexure R1(a) letter dated 20.04.2021. On adopting DSR, it was found that the amount remitted by the petitioner/complainant is insufficient. Therefore, the issue 26 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 regarding the fixation of rent payable by the petitioner is placed in the meeting of the Board scheduled on 14.07.2021. 30. In the order dated 05.07.2021, in DBP.No.47 of 2020, this Court noticed that in respect of the buildings constructed by the Board, without putting the Board with proper notice, the Devaswom authorities are granting permission to effect additional constructions. Whether any action has been taken by the Board on coming to know about such instances against officers, who on their own, without obtaining the sanction from the Board, granted permission to tenants to do similar things, whether constructions effected based on such unauthorised permissions are of the nature that would interfere with the stability of the building concerned, are matters of importance. As stated in the additional counter affidavit dated 01.11.2021, filed by the 1[st] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, the Estate Officer inspected the entire shopping complexes and submitted a report on 15.09.2021, reporting that in front of 5 shop rooms in Chengannoor Devaswom Shopping Complex, some space has been extended with tin sheet. In Kamankulangara Devaswom under Karunagappalli Group, in front of 9 shop 27 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 rooms an average area of 50 to 100 sq.ft. has been extended temporarily. In Padanayarkulangara Devaswom, under Karunagapalli Group, 4 shop rooms have been extended by an average area of 100 sq.ft. with RCC roof. In Kaduthuruthi Devaswom, 1,000 sq. ft. terrace area of the shop room has been covered with GI Sheet. In Mavelikkara Devaswom, 9 shop rooms have been extended by an average area of 50 to 100 sq.ft. with temporary roof. In Oachira Shopping Complex, an area 25 sq.ft. has been extended with temporary roof. Except in Kamankulangara, Puthiyakavu and Oachira Devaswoms and the shop rooms occupied by the petitioner/ complainant in Mavelikkara Devaswom, all extensions are temporary in nature. In the additional counter affidavit dated 01.11.2021, it is stated that, the extensions are not built with the permission of the Local Authorities, which are to be demolished at any moment, if ordered by the Local Authorities. Therefore, no special rent is charged for the extensions or the area of those extensions is included in the agreement. However, in the case of shop rooms as mentioned above, which have been extended by permanent construction, further explanation is sought from the Assistant 28 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 Devaswom Commissioner concerned. Immediately upon receipt of the same, further action will be taken by the Board. The petitioner/complainant made extension in the shop room in the year 2001. After verification of the records, the complaint made by the petitioner/complainant will be reconsidered by the Board, after rendering him an opportunity of being heard, and fresh orders will be passed within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. In the additional counter affidavit, it is stated that, in future, if any alterations are made in the shopping complex without prior permission of the Board, it will be treated as the personal liability of the officers who are in charge of that shopping complex, and strict departmental action will be initiated against them and penal liability will be fixed against them. 31. In **H.N.Vijayan** , this Court noticed that the major source of revenue of Travancore Devaswom Board is the income received by way of offering by the devotees, the amount received from Vazhipadu and the revenue generated through the auction of temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the temples and also the rental income generated from the buildings owned 29 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 by the respective Devaswoms. Therefore, while dealing with the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said building. In such transactions, the Board and its officials have to show reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs, by ensuring that the lease, rental or licence fee of the buildings owned by the Devaswoms is not lower than the prevailing market rent. The action of the Board in demanding lease, rental or licence fee for the buildings owned by the Devaswoms taking into consideration the prevailing market rent cannot be termed as an action of the Board demanding exorbitant or - rack rent, since, while leasing out the buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said buildings. Any default committed by the tenant or licensee of the buildings owned by the Devaswoms in payment of the monthly rent or licence fee, electricity charges, water charges, statutory dues, etc. has to be dealt with appropriately, so also the use of the building for another purpose or making material 30 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 alteration or addition to the building. In the said decision, this Court held that in view of the provisions under Section 15A of the Act, Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to monitor whether its administrative staff and employees in the Maramath wing are functioning properly, by taking prompt action against any such default or violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed or the licence deed. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, while leasing out buildings owned by the Devaswoms, the 1[st] respondent Board and its officials have to ensure that proper income is generated from the said buildings. The lease rental or licence fee of such buildings shall not be lower than the prevailing market rent or licence fee. No tenant or licensee can be permitted to have additional construction/extension to the premises in question, without the prior permission of the 1[st] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. Any such additional construction/extension can be made only with the approval of the concerned Engineer in the Maramath wing of the Board and after obtaining necessary building permit from the concerned Local Authority. Before executing fresh lease 31 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 deed or licence agreement or even at the time of its renewal the competent authority in the Maramath wing of the Board has to measure the area of the building or shop room and ensure that no additional construction/extension is made by the tenant or the licensee, without the prior permission of the Board. He shall also ensure that any such additional construction/extension made in the premises in question is after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Local Authority. 32. In **H.N.Vijayan** , this Court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials to take necessary steps to fix rent/licence fee for all the shops/buildings owned by Devaswoms under its management, at the prevailing market rate. The area of the premises in question shall be measured by the competent authority in the Maramath wing of the Board, at the time of execution/renewal of the lease deed/licence agreement or while granting a fresh lease/licence. Any additional construction/ extension made by the tenants/licensee, without prior permission of the Board and obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Local Authority 32 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 shall be demolished, without any further delay and the loss sustained to the Board on account of occupation of such unauthorised construction/extension by the tenant/licensee has to be recovered from him, at the rate equal to the prevailing market rent/licence fee. The Board shall take necessary steps in this regard against the petitioner/complainant and also other tenants/licensees of buildings/shop rooms owned by Devaswoms under its management, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in **Suneesh K.S. [ILR (2022) 1 Ker. 1091]** and **T. Krishnakumar [2022 (5) KHC SN 8]** . Necessary steps in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the said order. 33. As already noticed hereinbefore, in paragraph 4 of Ext.P1 judgment in W.P.(C)No.22031 of 2010, the Division Bench found that petitioner’s late husband P. Sasidharan has no shred of legal right to continue to cling on to possession of the shop rooms in question. By that judgment, he was permitted to continue in occupation for a period of three months, within which time the Board was directed to conduct 33 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 re-auction of the right to hold the said shop rooms under lease or licence, as the case may be. 34. We have also perused the Judge's papers in DBAR No.4 of 2015, which is listed today as item No.21, which deals with special audit report on the audit of revenue in Travancore Devaswom Board for a period from 01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013. Paragraph 7 (at page 28) of that audit report deals with Oachira Devaswom Shopping Complex, which is extracted hereinunder; “7. In the aforestated judgment, i.e., W.P.(C)No.22031 of 2010 and I.A.No.5048 of 2011 dated 29.06.2011, the Honourable High Court had categorically stated the following “the Travancore Devaswom Board shall file report before the Registrar (General) of this Court as regards the action following this judgment without fail, immediately after three months from now failing which it would be considered where the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board and the Executive Officer are personally liable for any loss referable to the delay. In the reply submitted by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner for Audit Enquiry No.3, nothing was mentioned about the reply filed before the Honourable High Court and the occupant is still occupying the rooms causing loss to the Devaswom. Hence, the loss sustained Rs.7,80,000/- may be recovered from the Board Secretary and concerned officers as per the Honourable High Court order.” 34 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 35. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner’s late husband P. Sasidharan died on 22.02.2019 and thereafter she is in occupation of shop room Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the 1[st] floor of Oachira Shopping Complex, in which she is dealing with Ayurvedic Medicine. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the prevailing market rent in the locality is only Rs.3,468/-, as stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would point out that, as stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner’s late husband participated in the auction held on 29.11.2011 expressing his willingness to take three shop rooms at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per room. We do not propose to consider rival contentions on the above aspect, in view of the specific finding in Ext.P1 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.22031 of 2010 that the petitioner’s late husband has no shred of legal right to continue to cling on to possession in the shop rooms in question. 36. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to continue occupation of shop room Nos.1, 2 and 3 35 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 in the 1[st] floor of Oachira Devaswom Shopping Complex and therefore, no interference is warranted on Ext.P7 notice dated 30.10.2020 of the 4[th] respondent Administrative Officer, which is one issued in terms of Ext.P7(2) communication dated 27.10.2020 of the Executive Engineer, Estate Division, addressed to the 2[nd] respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Karunagappally, whereby, the 4[th] respondent Administrative Officer is required to evict the petitioner from shop room Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the 1[st] floor of Oachira Devaswom Shopping Complex. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is for the 1[st] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials to initiate appropriate proceedings to evict the petitioner from the shop rooms in question and to recover arrears of rent taking note of the law laid down by this Court in **T. Krishnakumar [2022 (5) KHC SN 8]** and **H.N.Vijayan v. Devaswom Commissioner and another [2022/KER/50584]** . **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** MIN 36 W.P.(C)No.23675 of 2020 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23675/2020`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.22031 OF 2010 DATED 29.06.2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. ``` - **`EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 08.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`** - **`EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 16.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`** - **`EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 06.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`** - **`EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.4132, DATED 17.12.2011.`** - **`EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 03.03.2020 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MR.SUKUMARAN, BY THE DEVASWOM OFFICER,`** - **`EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.10.2020 ALONG WITH THE LETTER SENT BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ESTATE DIVISION, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 27.10.2020.`** - **`EXHIBIT P8 PRINT OUT OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02.11.2020.`** - **`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIMEN SHOWING THE RENT CALCULATION FIXED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AS PER DSR DATED NIL. Exhibit R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.07.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.18779/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ```