W.P.(C) No. 31039 of 2019; W.P.(C) No. 8715 of 2021 (Cochin Devaswom Board shop complexes rent matter)

## **`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 26[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ## **`W.P.(C)NO.31039 OF 2019`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** - **`1 BINOJ P.M., PAREMAKKAL HOUSE, KANNARA P.O. THRISSUR.`** - **`2 BIJU P.M., PAREMAKKAL HOUSE, KANNARA P.O. THRISSUR.`** - **`3 DOMINIC P.M., MUNDASSERY HOUSE, SANTHOSH STREET, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR.`** - **`4 RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. RAMAN, KRISHNA, KOLLASSERY HOUSE, SANTHITHEERAM ROAD, KUTTUR P.O. THRISSUR.`** - **`5 C.S. BABU, MADAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. CHEROOR, THRISSUR.`** - **`6 VISHNU RAMESH, EZHUVEMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURMPILAVU P.O. THRISSUR.`** - **`7 SHEEJA RAVEENDRANATHAN, KIZHAKOOT HOUSE, ISLAND AVENUE, STREET NO. 3, H.NO. 56, PUMKUNNAM, THRISSUR.`** - **`8 LINSON CHACKO, PALLITHANAM BUILDING, NORTH BUS STAND THRISSUR.`** - **`9 K.A. BABU, BASURA CHITTY FUNDS, SREEVADAKUMNATHAN`** 2 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case ## **`SHOPPING COMPLEX, THRISSUR.`** - **`10 ANISH GEORGE, CHIRAMMEL HOUSE, KARUVANKKADU P.O., THANIKUDAM, THRISSUR.`** - **`11 C.G. SURENDRAN, VILLA NO. 26, SKYLINE, KING SUE MADE, CHETTOOR ROAD, PERINGAVU P.O. THRISSUR.`** - **`12 VIJAYAN K.N., KIZHKOOT HOUSE, AQUATIC COMPLEX, THRISSUR.`** - **`13 VIJAYAMBIKA SURESH, KONIKKARA HOUSE, EAST NADA IRINJALAKUDA.`** - **`14 K.A. BABU, KADAVIL HOUSE, MELEDATH LINE, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR.`** - **`15 DIVYA SANOJ, TOP RESIDENCY, PALIYAM ROAD, THRISSUR.`** - **`16 UDHAYAKUMAR V.U., VARIYAMPATT HOUSE, MG KAVU, (PO), THRISSUR.`** - **`17 THAMBI T.I., THOLATH HOUSE, PERINGAVU, THIRUVAMBADY P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`18 SUJA THAMBI, W/O. THAMBI T.A., THOLATH HOUSE, PERINGAVU, THIRUVAMBADY P.O. THRISSUR.`** - **`19 N.P. RAJEEV, NELLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, GREEN PARK, 28-A, THIRUVAMBADY P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`20 SUDHIRAJ C.K., CHULLIPARAMBIL, H. NO. 1/360A, AVANISSERI, THRISSUR.`** - **`21 VINESH VENDORE, VENDORE HOUSE, CHITTISSERY P.O., THRISSUR.`** 3 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case - **`22 VAJUMON VENUS RAJAN, MANAKKALATH HOUSE, SWETHA RESIDENCY, BLOCK -1 GO, PALLIYIL LINE, KOTTAPURAM, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR.`** - **`23 VIJAYAN MENON, VIJAYA VIHAR, VADAMA P.O., MALA, THRISSUR.`** - **`24 KRISHNAPRASAD K.P., KOTTOMPAT HOUSE, CHOVANNUR P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR.`** - **`25 SASIKALA MENON, SROTHAS, GANDHI NAGAR, PERINGAVU, CHEROOR, THRISSUR.`** - **`26 SHAJUDHEEN P.K., PULICKAL HOUSE, PADOOR P.O., VENKIDANGU, THRISSUR.`** - **`27 PRADEEP RAVEENDRANATHAN, MARATHU HOUSE, P.O. KANNIMANGALAM, THRISSUR.`** - **`28 K.B. SANTHOSH, KODAPPULLY HOUSE, ALAPPAT P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`29 P.V. RAVEENDRAN, PUTHAMBULLY, KADAPPURAM P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`30 OMANA JOHN, KALLINGAL HOUSE, R.S. ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA THRISSUR.`** - **`31 M.B. SUDHARSAN, MALAPURATH HOUSE, LOTUS LINE, KOLAZHY P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`32 SURESHKUMAR M.K., MADAMBI HOUSE, AVANISSERY P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`33 NITHIN K. SATHEESAN, KARANATH HOUSE, CHERUMUKKU TEMPLE ROAD, THRISSUR.`** - **`34 BABY RADHAKRISHNAN, KUNNATH AVEN HOUSE, LAKSHMI NILAYAM, VASANTH`** 4 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case ## **`NAGAR, PATHIRAIKKAL, THRISSUR.`** - **`35 V.M. ABDUL RAZAK, VELIYAKATH HOUSE, KUVUMBILAVU P.O. CHIRAKKAL, THRISSUR.`** - **`36 JOJU FRANCIS, KELENGADAN HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`37 PUSHPAKUMAR NAIR, KANDANADU HOUSE, ERAVU P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`38 MARIA JOHNY, CHOVALLOOR HOUSE, MATTOM P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`39 SUNNY DANIEL K., KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, KATTILAPPOOVAM P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`40 DHARMARAJAN C.S., CHETTAKULAM HOUSE, MADAKKATHARA P.O., MANNUTHY, THRISSUR.`** - **`41 PAUL C.J., CHIRAYATH MANJILA HOUSE, PAUL NIVA, MOOSAPOT ROAD, EAST FORT, THRISSUR.`** - **`42 MEENA BABURAJAN, PANIKKATH HOUSE, VELAPPAYA, THRISSUR.`** - **`43 CHANDRA BOSE T.S., THANDIKKAL HOUSE, PADIYAM P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`44 M.D. DAVID,. MANJALI HOUSE, H.NO. 32/931, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR.`** - **`45 ANILKUMAR P.K., PLACKATTU PARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVAMPADY, THRISSUR.`** - **`46 SANTHOSH SOMASUNDARAM, KOLLARAKKAL HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR.`** - **`47 P.A. FRANCIS, PANDHALOOKKARAN HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O., UNITY`** 5 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case ## **`NAGAR, THRISSUR.`** - **`48 C.M. DAVID, CHIRAMMEL HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR.`** - **`49 K.R. SURESH,`** - **`KURUVATH HOUSE, PALAPARAMBIL LANE, PUNKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`50 K.C. RAMESH, KOZHIMADATHIL HOUSE, ANCHERI P.O., MOSCO ROAD, THRISSUR.`** - **`51 C.D. GOVINDAN, CHAKKUNGATHODIYIL, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR.`** - **`52 T.K. JANARDHANAN, KIZHAKKUMURI, PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR.`** - **`53 K.R. GIRISH, KANDAMPULLY HOUSE, ERUMAPETTY P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`54 RAGHAVAN K.K., KURUVATH HOUSE, PALAPARAMBIL, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR.`** - **`55 ANTONY K.K., KARERAKATTIL HOUSE, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR.`** - **`56 VALSA VARGHESE, KURUMUMKULAM HOUSE, THRIKKUMARAKUDAM, VIDYANAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR.`** - **`57 T.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, THANDASSERY HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR, 3RD STREET, PERINGAVU, THRISSUR.`** - **`58 JANCY BABU, PARAMBAN HOUSE, OLLOOKARA P.O., KUNNATHUMKARA, THRISSUR.`** - **`59 SANOJ T.R, TOP RESIDENCY, PALIYAM ROAD, THRISSUR.`** - **`60 M.P. GOPIDAS,`** - **`SREEAYYAPPA JYOTHI VIHAR, AYYANTHOLE,`** 6 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case ## **`THRISSUR.`** - **`61 BABU K.S, AGED 55 YEARS S/O. K.D. SEBASTIAN KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE, NEDUMPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`62 JOHN JOSEPH, KOLLANNUR THARAYIL HOUSE, ATTORE, KUTTUR P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`63 GEORGE JIM JACK, VIYOOR KOTTEKKAD ROAD, THRISSUR.`** - **`64 MUHAMMED FAROOK, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM.`** - **`65 MANGIAL RAJ PUROHIT, SUNDAR NIVAS MUSEUM CROSS LINE, 8TH STREET, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR.`** - **`66 SREELAKSHMI, THANNIKKAL HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE, PUNCHIKKAL, THRISSUR.`** - **`67 THANKAMMA LAWRENCE, EDAKALATHOOR HOUSE, GURUVAYOOR ROAD,`** - **`THRISSUR.`** - **`68 HETTY JOHN, ARANGATHPARAMBIL HOUSE, NANDIKKARA P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`69 M. MANIKANTAN, KARTHIK, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, THANATTUKARA, THRISSUR.`** - **`70 SHAJU.E.D., EDAKKALATHUR HOUSE, PARAVATTANI, P.O. EAST FORT, THRISSUR.`** - **`71 T.I. VARGHESE,`** ## **`C6, OOTTY GARDENS, THEKKEKARA HOUSE,`** - **`THRISSUR.`** 7 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case - **`72 SHAJU V.D., VALLUKULAM HOUSE, P.O. MARATHAKKARA, THRISSUR.`** - **`73 K.M. DANIEL, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, KATTILAPPOVAM P.O., THRISSUR.`** - **`74 P.V. MOHANAN, VYSHNAVAM, SURYA GARDENS, CHRUMUKKU, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR.`** - **`75 JOHN LAZAR, AUTOKKARAN HOUSE, GREEN PARK AVENUE, THIRUVAMPADY P.O., THRISSUR -22.`** - **`76 K. BHARATHAN,`** - **`S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, MULLAPPALLY HOUSE, POOMKUNNAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.`** ``` BY ADV S.SUJIN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BUILDING, THISSUR DISTRICT -680 001.`** - **`2 SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 001.`** ``` BY ADV SRI. K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SRI N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR ) FOR PETITIONER`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).8715/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 8 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case ``` 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 26[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1944 ``` ``` W.P.(C)NO.8715OF 2021 ``` ``` PETITIONERS: ``` ``` SANOJ T.R., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O RAVEENDRANATHAN, THARAMBIL HOUSE, TOP RESIDENCY, PALIYAM ROAD, THRISSUR-1. ``` ``` BY ADV S. SUJIN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.`** - **`2 THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 001.`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).31039/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 9 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** Since common issue is involved, these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019:- The petitioners, who are in occupation of shop rooms in Shiva Sakthi Building and Kailasom Shopping Complex owned by the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, which are situated in Thrissur District, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 circular dated 31.08.2019 issued by the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, which deals with the amendments made to the existing by-laws for granting/ renewing lease/licence in respect of shop rooms owned by the Devaswom Board, with effect from 01.08.2019. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents not to revise the rent of the shop rooms periodically, i.e., every year. 2.1. On 18.11.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin 10 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions. 2.2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 05.12.2019, opposing the relief sought for in this writ petition. In the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that, Ext.P1 circular dated 31.08.2019 was issued by the Board, in terms of Ext.R1(A) audit notes of the Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit, on rent collection of Cochin Devaswom Board for the year 2017-18. In the said audit notes, it is pointed out that the three major shopping complexes of the Cochin Devaswom Board in Thrissur District, namely, Vadakkumnathan Shopping Complex, Shiva Sakthi Building and East Pallithanam Shopping Complex are situated in the heart of Thrissur city. The State Audit repeatedly reported that the rent fixed in respect of the above buildings are not realistic and is not based on the land value and commercial importance of the area. Alteration and subletting of rooms in the Devaswom Shopping Complexes are not uncommon. The Vigilance Wing of the Board has also reported the same by submitting a detailed enquiry report. It was after considering all these materials, Ext.P1 circular was issued by the Board, which has already been implemented and agreements 11 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case executed in respect of shopping complexes at Chottanikkara, Kodungallur, Thriprayar, Srinagapuram, etc. All the tenants are fully aware that they are paying a lesser amount as rent, compared to other buildings in the city. The 2[nd] , 27[th] and 68[th] petitioners have already paid rent in the enhanced rate. Paragraphs 3 to 7 of the counter affidavit dated 05.12.2019 read thus; “3. At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The writ petitioners claims to be the tenants under the Cochin Devaswom Board and they are challenging Ext.P1 circular dated 31.08.2019 issued by the Board. It is submitted that the said circular was issued by the Board in terms of the report of the Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit, CDB audit, Thrissur. In this regard, true copy of the relevant pages of the audit notes on the rent collection of Cochin Devaswom Board for the year 2017-18 is produced here with and marked as Ext.R1 (A). A perusal of the said report would show that the three major shopping complexes of CDB in Thrissur town namely Wadakkumnathan Shopping Complex, Shiva Shakti building and East Pallithamam Shopping Complex are situated in the heart of Thrissur city. The audit repeatedly reported that the rent fixed in these buildings are not realistic and is not based on the land value and commercial importance of these areas. It 12 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case was also reported that alteration and subletting of devaswom rooms are not uncommon and is not being acted upon in time. The Vigilance Wing of CDB has also reported the same and submitted a detailed enquiry report. It is considering all these matters, Ext.P1 circular was issued by the Board. Ext.P1 circular was implemented in CDB and agreements were executed in the shopping complexes at Chottanikkara, Kodungallur, Thriprayar, Sringapuram etc. It is submitted that all the tenants are fully aware of the fact that they are paying lesser amount as rent compared to other buildings in the city. Petitioner numbers 2, 27 and 68 have already paid the rent at the enhanced rate and without disclosing the same the writ petition is filed. 4. The allegations contained in the writ petition that the Board is imposing unfair conditions to collect more rent from the tenants is absolutely incorrect. There is absolutely no bonafides in the allegation that if the lease is renewed only for 11 months the petitioners will not be able to invest further amounts. It is submitted that on enquiry it is informed that serial number 6 in the above writ petition namely Vishnu Ramesh is not even in India. Similarly, serial number 74, P.V Mohanan is not a tenant of CDB. Serial number 7, namely Sheeja Raveendranathan has subleased the building and original suit is pending consideration by the civil court. Similarly, serial numbers 34, 51, 59 and 63 have already subleased the building and the same was reported by the vigilance wing of CDB. The said aspect has also been reported in the audit report. Serial 13 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case number 37, namely, Pushkarakshan Nair is no more and the license was renewed in favour of his wife Santhakumari. But the deceased person has signed the writ petition. So, it is evident that there is absolutely no bonafides in the contentions raised in the writ petition and writ petition is not maintainable. 5. The petitioners are not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to restrain the respondents from laying down the terms and conditions of license of the building owned by them. The petitioners have the absolute choice not to accept the terms and to them. There is absolutely no arbitrariness, unreasonableness in Ext.P1 circular. 6. The allegation raised in the writ petition that every year the rent is being enhanced at 11% and previously it was 25% during every 3 years. It is submitted that there is absolutely no basis for such allegation. In order to analyse the difference between the enhancement, the following illustration is submitted. In the case of writ petitioner No. 43, namely, Chandra Bose T.S., Rent for 3 years from 01.12.2016, 5369 enhancement of rent with effect from 01.12.2019 as per Ext.P1 circular (enhancement at 11% per year) Rent for the period commencing from 01.12.2019 for 11 months = 5960 x 11 =65560 Rent for the period commencing from 01.11.2020 for 11 months = 6616x 11 = 72776 Rent for the period commencing from 01.10.2021 for 11month = 7344 x 11 80784 14 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case Rent for the period commencing from 01.09.2022 for 3 months = 8152 x 3 = 24456 Total Rs.2,43, 576/- If it is as per the previous by law (enhancement at 25% for 3 years) comes to 6711 x 36 = Rs.2,41,596/- In the event of executing the lease agreement for 3 years, the tenant has to execute the agreement in the stamp paper worth 4751/- as per clause 33 of Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 and if the said amount is added to the yearly rent, it would come to Rs.2,46,347/-. So, it is evident that there is absolutely no merit in the allegations contained in the writ petition. 7. It is submitted that there is absolutely no bonafides in any of the allegations contained in the writ petition. Serial number 76, namely, K. Bharathan, is a chronic defaulter and more than a sum of Rs.8 lakhs is in arrears towards the monthly rent. The vigilance wing of CDB has also reported that the tenants who have sublet at the rooms is getting huge amount towards rent. It was in that circumstances Ext.P1 circular was issued in obedience to the report of the state audit department. There is absolutely no bonafides in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with the exemplary cost.” 2.3. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit dated 09.01.2020, producing therewith Exts.P4 to P7 documents. On 10.02.2020, the respondents have filed an additional counter affidavit dated 06.02.2020 producing therewith 15 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case Exts.R1(B) and R1(C) documents. On 22.10.2021, the respondents filed additional counter affidavit dated 20.10.2021, producing therewith Ext.R1(D) document. On 07.12.2021, the petitioners filed a reply affidavit dated 04.12.2021, producing therewith Exts.P8 to P10 documents. On 06.06.2022, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2022, seeking an order to accept Ext.P4 lease deed dated 07.12.2021 as an additional document, in support of their contentions that certain persons are granted lease for a period of three years, with periodical revision of rent, though Ext.P1 circular provides lease for a period of 11 months, with periodical revision. On 13.06.2022, the respondents filed a counter affidavit dated 11.06.2022, producing therewith Exts.R1(G) to R1(E) documents. 3. W.P.(C)No.8715 of 2021:- This writ petition is one filed by the 59[th] petitioner in W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 notice dated 17.03.2021 issued by the 2[nd] respondent, the Secretary of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, whereby, the petitioner is required to close opening in the wall of the shop rooms in Vadakkumnathan Shopping Complex, in which he 16 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case is conducting business along with one P.M.Ibrahim. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to disturb peaceful enjoyment of the rooms leased out to the petitioner, till he is legally evicted by due process of law. 3.1. On 07.04.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, it was ordered to be listed along with W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019. 4. On 21.12.2021, when the above writ petitions came up for consideration, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already cleared the entire arrears at the pre-revised rate. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions. This Court directed that, the petitioners in the respective writ petitions shall also remit a further amount towards 50% of additional demand made by the Devaswom in the revised rate, which shall be made within three weeks, without prejudice to their contentions in the respective writ petitions. 5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions and also the 17 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board. 6. 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 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, 18 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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 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 19 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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.” (underline supplied) 7. 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 20 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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. 8. 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]** 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 21 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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. 9. 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. 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, 22 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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. 10. In **Abu K.S. [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642]** the writ petitioner, the successful bidder, remitted only 50% of 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 23 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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 management of the Travancore Devaswom Board cannot be permitted in future, this Court directed Registry to initiate _suo motu_ proceedings in the that matter. 11. 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 24 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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 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 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case ## 12. 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. 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 26 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case of mere landlords. The best interest of the Devaswoms under the control of the Devaswom Boards would be subserved only if income is generated. 13. 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 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. 14. In **T. Krishnakumar [2022 (5) KHC SN 8]** , the 27 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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 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 28 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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 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. 15. 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 29 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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 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 30 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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 13.04.2019, the petitioner had already remitted a total sum of Rs.3,73,793/-, towards the demand made in Annexure A11 notice. 16. 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). 31 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case Considering the said report, the Board fixed DSR rent **==> picture [398 x 32] intentionally omitted <==** 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 regarding the fixation of rent payable by the petitioner is placed in the meeting of the Board scheduled on 14.07.2021. 17. 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 32 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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 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 25sq.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 33 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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 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 34 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case strict departmental action will be initiated against them and penal liability will be fixed against them. 18. In **H.N.Vijayan** , this Court noticed that t 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 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 35 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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 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 36 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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 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. 19. 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 37 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 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 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 38 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case any rate, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 20. The issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the law laid down by this Court in **T. Krishna Kumar v.** reiterated in **H.N.Vijayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2022/KER/50584]** . In view of the law laid down in the said decisions, the challenge made in W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 against Ext.P1 circular dated 31.08.2019 issued by the 1[st] respondent Board cannot be sustained. The Cochin Devaswom Board has to ensure that proper rental income/ licence fee is generated from the shop rooms in the shopping complexes owned by the respective Devaswoms under its management, which shall not be lower than the prevailing market rent in the locality. 21. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that since Ext.P1 circular provides grant or renewal of licence only for a period of 11 months, with periodical revision, the occupants of the shop rooms find it difficult to avail loan and other financial assistance from Banks and other institutions. 39 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case 22. It is for the petitioners to raise their above grievance before the respondents, by submitting a proper representation, pointing out the above issue, within a period of two weeks from the reciept of a certified copy of this judgment. In case any such representation is received, the 1[st] respondent Board shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision on that issue, within a period of two months. The above direction shall have no application in the case of an occupant of a shop room owned by the 1[st ] respondent Board, in which he is a sub-tenant or is in occupation in violation of the conditions of lease/licence. 23. The 2[nd] respondent Secretary shall refix the market rent/licence fee of the respective shop rooms with individual notice to the petitioners, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording them an opportunity of being heard. It would be open to the petitioners to submit written submission before the Secretary of the Board, raising appropriate contentions. The decision taken by the Secretary of the Board shall be strictly in terms of the law laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to supra. While refixing 40 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case the monthly rent or licence fee of the shop rooms, the Secretary of the Board shall ensure that the rate of the monthly rent or licence fee is not lower than the prevailing market rent in the locality. Any decision taken by the Secretary of the Board shall be subject to approval by the Cochin Devaswom Board, which shall be obtained within a further period of one month. While granting such approval, the Board shall ensure that the monthly rent/licence fee of the respective shop rooms so fixed is not lower than the prevailing market rent in the locality. The above directions shall have no application in the case of an occupant of a shop room owned by the 1[st ] respondent Board, in which he is a sub-tenant or is in occupation in violation of the conditions of lease/licence. The writ petition disposed of as above. No order as to costs. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** MIN 41 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31039/2019`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS: ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. R1- 3648/13 DATED 31.8.2019 ISSUED TO ALL THE TENANTS. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY MR. GOVINDAN AND 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 27.7.2005. ``` - **`EXHIBIT P3`** ``` TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY MR. DAVID AND 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.01.2012. ``` - **`EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY RECEIPT DATED 6/5/1988 FOR RECEIPT OF RS.10,000/-AS DONATION`** - **`EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY RECEIPT DATED 6/5/1988 FOR RECEIPT OF RS.10,000/-AS SECURITY`** - **`EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY RECEIPT DATED 15/11/1988 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BOARD FOR SECURITY AND DONATION FROM SRI.M.N.MOHANAN`** - **`EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY RECEIPT DATED 22/12/1988 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BOARD FOR SECURITY AND DONATION FROM SRI.M.N.MOHANAN`** ``` RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: ``` - **`EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AUDIT NOTES ON THE RENT COLLECTION OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD FOR THE 2017-18.`** ``` EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY ORDER NO.R1.855/89 DATED 06.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.R1.825/89 DATED 22.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE ``` 42 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case ## **`RESPONDENT.`** ``` EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY PETITION DATED 12.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY ONE DIVYA, W/O.SREEJU, PANIKKAPARAMBIL, PUTHUR POST, THRISSUR BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD AND THE DOCUMENTS APPENDED TO THE SAID PETITION. ``` - **`ANNEXURE R1 (A) TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT IN A TABULAR FORM PREPARED BY THE 1[ST] RESPONDENT DETAILING THE ARREARS OF RENT DUE FROM THE PETITIONERS`** - **`ANNEXURE R1 (B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.R1-4024/20 DATED 09.09.2021 ISSUED BY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD`** - **`ANNEXURE R1 (C) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.R1-4024/20 DATED 25.10.2021 ISSUED BY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD`** - **`ANNEXURE R1 (D) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.R1-4024/20 DATED 03.12.2021 ISSUED BY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD`** - **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS:`** - **`EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 1810/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR.`** - **`EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT AS CMP NO. 4546/2021.`** ``` EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 27.11.2021 OF THE 51ST PETITIONER ALONG WITH CHEQUE DATED 27.11.2021 DRAWN ON THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, PUDUKKAD IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT DEVASWOM BOARD. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DEED DATED 7.12.2021 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ``` 43 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case ## **`PARTIES`** ## **`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS:`** ``` EXHIBIT R1 F TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. R1-1300/12 DATED 16/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY (IN CHARGE) OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT BOARD. EXHIBIT R1 G TRUE COPY OF CHART PREPARED BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT BOARD. EXHIBIT R1 E TRUE COPY OF GUIDELINES FORMULATED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BOARD. ``` 44 W.P.(C)No.31039 of 2019 and conne. case ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8715/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 1.8.2006 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 1.8.2014 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (STATE) FOR THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ```