The petitioners are tenants in room Nos.9 to 14 in shopping complex belonging to the first respondent panchayat bearing door Nos.1/738 to 1/743. According to the petitioners, they have been conducting business thereon based on a lease agreement with the first respondent panchayat for the past 30 years or thereabouts. While so, they were asked to vacate the shop rooms to enable the first respondent to demolish the building and effect construction thereon. The contention of the petitioners is that they were offered with alternative accommodation in the community hall of the panchayat and in fact, they were made to incur expenditure for making alteration in the community hall to make it conducive to conduct business activities. Earlier, when the respondents initiated action to evict the petitioners from the shop rooms without providing alternative accommodation, they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.25548 of 2005. That writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment. The captioned writ petition has been filed alleging coercive steps to evict the petitioners without providing alternative accommodation despite Ext.P2 judgment, with the following prayers:-
i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order quashing the direction contained in Ext.P7 notice to vacate the shop rooms being occupied by the petitioners.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding respondents not to evict the petitioners from the shop rooms now being occupied by them without providing alternate accommodation by allotting shop room to them on reasonable rent.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to allot one shop room to petitioner No.4 and allot one more shop room in addition to the shop room already allotted to petitioner No.3 in the community hall of the 1st respondent on reasonable rent.
iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to issue copy of resolution No.V
(1) dated 28.1.2014 passed by the 1st respondent to the petitioners.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and senior counsel appearing for the respondents. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this writ petition. The claims and contentions of the petitioners have been resisted by the respondents stating that the petitioners are not justified in seeking the reliefs as aforesaid after refusing to accept the offer made by the respondents which is evident from Ext.R1(c). It is stated therein that ten shop rooms were constructed in community hall and two of them were to be allotted for conducting Haritha Vegetable stalls. Out of the eight shop rooms, four were offered to the petitioners and it was decided not to conduct auction in respect of those shop rooms. It was further resolved by the panchayat to conduct auction in regard to the other shop rooms and then to fix the lowest bid amount in respect of those shop rooms as the rent payable by the petitioners in respect of shop rooms reserved for allotment to them. To lend support to the said contention, the respondents have produced Ext.R1(a). Ext.R1(a) would reveal that pursuant to such a decision taken by the panchayat the said fact was duly intimated to the petitioners. Ext.R1(b) is produced to show that Ext.R1(a) intimations were received by the petitioners and that the petitioners had responded to Ext.R1(a). Evidently, as per Ext.R1(b), the petitioners disclosed their intention to occupy the shop rooms bearing Nos.III/209 (39) to (42). After receiving Ext.R1(b), Ext.R1(c) resolution was passed by the panchayat on 19.12.2013 fixing the rent payable by the petitioners at `7700. Time up to 10.1.2014 was fixed to enable the petitioners to execute agreements with the panchayat for getting occupation of the said shop rooms. The contention of the respondents is that despite such an offer, the petitioners did not execute an agreement or take possession of the rooms. In such circumstances, the panchayat was constrained to take a decision to auction the shop rooms decided to be allotted in favour of the petitioners. Pursuant to such resolution, Ext.R1(f) tender notification was issued. Later, auction was conducted in respect of the said shop rooms and presently the successful bidders are occupying the said shop rooms. In short, according to the respondents, owing to the disinclination on the part of the petitioners to accept the offer and take possession of the shop rooms, they were constrained to conduct auction of the said shop rooms and based on the auction, the successful bidders are presently occupying shop rooms and presently, no shop rooms are available for allotment to the petitioners. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioners who failed to occupy the shop rooms pursuant to Ext.R1(a) and Ext.R1(c) despite the submission of Ext.R1(b) are not justified in claiming any right to continue with the occupation and possession of the aforesaid shop rooms in the shopping complex. It is contended that though the decision was taken to demolish the construction as early as in 2005, in view of the long litigation, the same could not be materialised.
3. It is not disputed that pursuant to Ext.R1(a), the petitioners submitted Ext.R1(b) offering their willingness to occupy the shop rooms specifically mentioned thereunder. It is the contention of the petitioners that though they offered a higher rent than the rate at which they were paying for occupying the shop rooms presently occupied by them, the respondents demanded a higher rate viz., Rs.7700/- It is also the contention of the petitioners that they were made to spent an amount of `1,50,000 for converting the community hall as shop rooms. Ext.R1(d) would reveal that the said claim of the petitioners were considered by the respondents and after verifying the the documents it was found that no document is available evidencing and supporting the said claim and contentions of the petitioners. It is taking into account those facts that the petitioners were allowed a longer period to execute agreement and to take possession of the shop rooms and that too, without conducting any auction. The learned senior counsel for the respondents contended that in fact, it was decided not to demand any deposit from the petitioners and they were asked to pay only the rent for occupying shop rooms. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that the fourth respondent has virtually stopped his business in the rented premises and he abandoned the business. The said statement has been refuted by the petitioners.
4. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit in a bid to refute the contentions taken up by the respondents in the counter affidavit. It is the common case that shop rooms bearing door Nos.1/738 to 1/743 were leased out to the petitioners only for a period of one year. Despite the expiry of this period, the petitioners continued to occupy the rooms. It is the common case that thereafter the period was extended and there is valid agreement existing only up to 31.3.2014. When that be the admitted position, the petitioners cannot claim any indefeasible right to occupy the shop rooms which they are presently occupying beyond the period fixed as per the agreement executed between the petitioners and the first respondent.
The said position is settled by a decision of this Court in Soman v. Kottarakara Grama Panchayat [2003 (2) KLT 1007]. I do not think it necessary to consider those aspects as the petitioners did not claim that they have an indefeasible right to occupy the shop rooms beyond the said period and that their claim is based on Ext.P2 judgment. In fact, in the decision in Soman's case (supra), it was held that when rooms belonging to panchayat were rented out for fixed period, the tenants got no right to continue in occupation after the period fixed and the panchayat got power to conduct auction and allot rooms to successful bidders. True that in this case, it is not the decision of the respondents to conduct auction in respect of the aforesaid rooms and to allot them to the successful bidders. Their decision is to demolish the old building and to construct new shops for the purpose of generating income to raise funds for various developmental activities. Whatever that be, when the position is that the petitioners had obtained shop rooms in question only for a fixed period, after the expiry of the period, they cannot claim any indefeasible right to continue in possession, as a matter of right. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioners do not have any such claim as well and their claim is based on Ext.P2 judgment. The facts narrated earlier would reveal that the respondents have also honoured the directions in Ext.P2 by holding out an offer to the petitioners through Ext.R1(a). After the conversion of the panchayat community hall as shop rooms, the respondents decided not to conduct auction in regard to four shop rooms and offered those shop rooms to the petitioners essentially to honour the directions of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. After the receipt of Ext.R1(a), the petitioners submitted Ext.R1(b) expressing their willingness to occupy four shop rooms. The question is whether the petitioners are justified in retreating from their acceptance of offer made by the respondents taking up the contention that the respondents demanded an exorbitant rent and then to continue with the occupation of the shop rooms in the shopping complex. As noticed hereinbefore, the case of the petitioners is that they are paying only an amount less than Rs.1000 as rent for occupying the shop rooms, now in their possession. Ext.R1(a) would reveal that after constructing 10 shop rooms, four shop rooms were allotted to the petitioners and the remaining shop rooms were put in auction and the lowest bid amount in respect of the shop rooms was `7700. In terms of the resolution of the respondents evident from Ext.R1(c), that amount was fixed as the rent in respect of the shop rooms offered to the petitioners. When these facts are not disputed the failure on the part of the petitioners to execute the agreement and to occupy the rooms reserved for allotment even without conducting auction that too, after responding positively to the offer made by the respondents through Ext.R1(b) raising the contention of demand of an exorbitant rent amount cannot be appreciated. It is a fact borne out from records that subsequent to the failure on the part of the petitioners to take possession of the shop rooms offered to them through Ext.R1(a), Ext.R1(f) auction notice was published and in terms of which auction was conducted and the successful bidders in the said auction, on allotment, took possession of all the shop rooms. In short, owing to the failure on the part of the petitioners to accept the offer and to take possession of the shop rooms the respondents were constrained to conduct auction in respect of the said shop rooms. I do not find any reason to find fault with the said action on the part of the respondents. In respect of the properties belonging to the panchayat they are bound to dispose of such properties in accordance with law. The facts narrated earlier would reveal that earlier they took a decision to dispense with the auction in regard to four shop rooms and offered them to the petitioners only with a view to honour the directions of this Court in Ext.P2. Having failed to accept the said offer and get occupation of the said shop rooms, the petitioners are not justified in raising the contention that they should be permitted to continue to occupy the shop rooms presently in their possession contending that there is no requirement to demolish the building and to effect any further construction. The petitioners cannot legally raise any such objection with respect to the said decision of the first respondent panchayat to demolish the building and effect new construction especially after Ext.P2 judgment and after submitting Ext.R1(b). When faced with such a situation the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that taking into account the present proposal on the part of the respondents to demolish the old building and to construct new shopping complex, the respondents may be directed to consider the scope of offering rooms in the shopping complex to be constructed. Though the petitioners cannot as a matter of right claim for that, I am of the fervent hope that after demolition and construction of the building the respondents would consider such a request in case the petitioners made such request. Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. Taking into account the fact that the petitioners are conducting business in the aforesaid shop rooms and eking livelihood through the income generated from the said business it would only be appropriate for the respondents to grant three months time for the petitioners to give vacant possession of the shop rooms. In case of failure on the part of the petitioners to give vacant possession within the above stipulated time, it will be open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law to vacate the petitioners from the shop rooms.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010