Suresh P.A. vs Kottayam Municipality

C.T. Ravikumar, J.—The petitioners have common grievances for redressal against the common respondent namely the Kottayam Municipality. Therefore, these writ petitions are taken up for joint consideration and disposal.

The petitioners were conducting different businesses in the stalls allotted to them in the old vegetable market belonging to the first respondent municipality in the heart of the Kottayam town. The old vegetable market abuts the Masjid Road and Challiyil Road linking the K.K. Road and M.C.Road. While they were thus conducting business the first respondent introduced a project for establishment of a new vegetable market in the year 2010. Accordingly, a new eco-friendly vegetable market was constructed at Kodimatha in Kottayam. The stalls occupied by the petitioners in the old market were in a ramshackle and therefore, soon after the construction of the new market at Kodimatha, under the rehabilitation package, the petitioners and similarly situated business men who were conducting business in the old market were allotted business stalls 1 to 76 in the new market. After executing agreements with the first respondent municipality, the petitioners and the others similarly situated occupied their business stalls in the new vegetable market. Earlier, while they were occupying the business stalls in the old market, notices were issued to the petitioners under section 215 of the Kerala Municipality Act informing them of their arrears towards rent and cautioning them of eviction without any further notice in case of their failure to remit the rent amount including the arrears and the service tax and also the penal interest. In fact, it was thereafter that the petitioners and others shifted business to the new vegetable market at Kodimatha. Later, the petitioners were issued with notices demanding different amounts ranging from Rs.75,000 to Rs.2,25,000 as security amount and they were also required to give the advance license fee mentioned in the notice issued to them. It is the contention of the petitioners that they were given instalment facility for remitting the security deposit. In January 2014, notices were again issued to the petitioners requiring them to pay the arrears of rent and the security deposit. The contention of the petitioners is that certain other conditions which were agreed upon by the first respondent- municipality before the execution of the agreement and shifting the business to the new vegetable market were not complied with by the respondents. The bypass road to the new vegetable market and bus route facility to the new market linking to Kodimatha and M.C Road are not yet provided. A bus terminal at Kodimatha passing through the new vegetable market is also not yet established. The petitioners have various other grievances regarding such aspects. At the same time, there is no serious dispute with respect to the fact that they have committed default in payment of rent and that is yet to be cleared and also that they are yet to pay the security deposit amount fully. Despite such circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the captioned writ petitions challenging the notices issued to them by the municipality demanding payment of rental arrears, security deposit with penal interest besides seeking a declaration that they are entitled to continue to occupy the business stall occupied by them under the rehabilitation package reserved for them and further instalment facility for paying the security deposit under the project of new market.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. I am of the view that as regards the present grievance of the petitioners relating the demand for payment of arrears of rent and the security deposit with penal interest, the question whether there was any promise from the part of the first respondent municipality to provide bus terminal, bus route and bypass got no relevance as the petitioners had not produced any material to show that they need to discharge such liabilities only if such facilities are provided, under the agreement. To the pointed questions put forth by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners would admit that the petitioners are liable to pay the arrears of rent as also to deposit the security amount. Admittedly, in respect of each business stall, taking into account the convenience and the area, security deposit was fixed at different rates. The arrears towards rent are also different in respect of the petitioners. At the same time, admittedly, all the petitioners have committed failure to pay the monthly rent and there is rental arrears and they have also committed default in making the security deposit. In such circumstances, citing the reason that certain promises were not kept by the municipality, the petitioners cannot wriggle out of their liability to pay the amount which they are legally liable to pay. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the records maintained by the respondents would reveal the fact that the petitioners have committed default in payment of rent and they have also failed to make the security deposit in terms of the agreement executed by them with the municipality. As noticed hereinbefore, when such facts are not in dispute, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashment of notices demanding payment of the amount towards the aforesaid account. At the same time, no provision has been brought to my notice by the respondents to make the petitioners liable to pay interest or to charge interest on the amount to be deposited as security under any statute and as such interest on security deposit is not leviable. The learned standing counsel further submitted that owing to the failure on the part of the petitioners to pay the amount of rent in arrears as also the security deposit, the licenses issued to the petitioners for conducting the business are not renewed. When W.P.(C).No.3615 of 2014 came up for admission on 5.2.2014 this Court issued an order not to dispossess the petitioners therein from their respective stalls on condition of deposit of an amount of Rs.30,000 each with the first respondent. The petitioners are yet to effect the said deposit. Evidently, in all these writ petitions, an interim order directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners was passed and on the strength of the said order, the petitioners are continuing to occupy respective stalls despite the non-payment of the amount demanded through the notices issued to them by the municipality. Taking into account all these aspects and also the straitened circumstances projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners which the petitioners are facing on account of dull business subsequent to the shifting of business from the old market to the new vegetable market, I am of the view that these writ petitions can be disposed of with directions. The respondents shall issue fresh notices to all the petitioners mentioning the amount of rent in arrears and also the amount of security deposit to be paid by each of the petitioners. On receipt of such notices, 30% of the total amount demanded shall be paid by the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of such notices. In case the petitioners effect such payment within the said stipulated time, the question of renewal of their application shall be considered by the respondents and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon. The petitioners shall pay the second instalment viz., 30% of the total amount demanded after one month from date of payment of the first instalment, in terms of this judgment. The balance 40% payable shall be paid within a further period of 45 days from the due date for payment of the second instalment. It is made clear that in respect of security deposit, no penal interest shall be demanded or charged. In case the petitioners are not effecting payment of the amount as above, it will be open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law for effecting recovery of the amount due from the petitioners and also for evicting them from the allotted stalls.

Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.