M/S. MUSTHAFA & ALMANA INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS Vs. SMARTCITY (KOCHI) INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this O.P(RC) is to the order dtd. 19/5/2025 passed by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.134 of 2020 that was filed by the Smart City (Kochi) Infrastructure (P) Ltd [hereinafter referred to as the 'Developer'] seeking to evict the petitioner firm under Sec. 11 (2) (a) and (b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as the 'KBLR Act']. The case throws up an interesting question regarding the interplay between the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as the 'SEZ Act'] and the provisions of the KBLR Act, especially in the context of the remedy of eviction of a defaulter tenant, available to a landlord under the KBLR Act. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of the original petition are as follows:

(2.) The developer had set up a Special Economic Zone [SEZ] for Information Technology [IT] and Information Technology Enabled Services [ITES] on 53.1809 hectares of land in Kakkanad Village. Towards this end, it had also entered into a registered lease agreement with the Government of Kerala under which it obtained possession and leasehold rights in respect of the land, together with the right to subO. lease portions of the land to entrepreneurs, as defined under the SEZ Act. The developer then approached the Central Government with a request for notifying the land as an SEZ, and approving it as a developer thereof. It is not in dispute that the SEZ was duly notified as such and that the developer too was approved by the Central Government.

(3.) The petitioner firm approached the developer with a request for space within the premises of the SEZ, and on the developer agreeing to provide the space to the petitioner firm on its qualifying to be an entrepreneur, applied to the Development Commissioner for the necessary approval to function as a unit in the SEZ. The said application was approved by the authorised committee under the SEZ Act, and the approval letter, containing the terms and conditions subject to which the approval was granted, was issued to the petitioner. One of the terms in the letter of approval was that the petitioner had to furnish a copy of the registered lease deed executed with the developer within six months from the issuance of the letter of approval. It is not in dispute in this case that the said registered lease deed was duly executed, and a copy furnished to the Development Commissioner for confirming the letter of approval.