The petitioners are tenants of separate building spaces managed by the Kerala State Housing Board. There was a dispute between the parties relating to collection of common amenity charges. When a demand was made to the petitioners, they refused to pay the same on the allegation that the charges demanded were exorbitant. 2. Since a dispute had been raised and the petitioners were continuing in occupation, notices were issued for eviction of the petitioners invoking Section 85 of the Kerala Housing Board (Eviction from Board Premises) Act and the Rules framed thereunder. According to the petitioners, computation of amounts as common amenity charges is without any basis and the same had been increased all of a sudden.
3. The learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the charges are levied on the basis of the expenditure incurred, which is shared by all the persons who are occupying the space. The charges are fixed by the Managing Committee which consists of members of the tenants as well. Under these circumstances, the petitioners cannot challenge the right to collect common amenity charges and since they having not W.P(C) Nos. 5394, 7199 & 14593 of 2014 -: 2 :-
paid such charges, the respondent had no other option but to call upon them to surrender possession of the tenanted premises.
4. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that any order passed under Section 85 is appealable as well.
5. Since the petitioners are challenging the quantum of amount involved in the matter, I do not think that this Court can sit in judgment over the decision taken by the Managing Committee by fixing common amenities. If is purely a question of fact regarding the actual expenditure involved.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that already final orders for eviction were passed under Section 85 of the Act in the year 2012 and notices were issued only to call upon them to surrender possession.
7. Having regard to the above factual circumstances and since there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioners under Section 87 of the aforesaid Act, it is always open for the petitioners to approach the appellate forum.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of making it clear that the remedy of the W.P(C) Nos. 5394, 7199 & 14593 of 2014 -: 3 :-
petitioners is to file necessary appeal before the appellate authority under Section 87, which they shall do within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is open for the petitioners to approach the appellate authority for stay of further proceedings.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/