JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is conducting business in stationery, vegetables and meat products in three shop rooms in Jawahar Nagar shopping complex, Thiruvananthapuram taken on lease from the Kerala State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board'). Shop rooms 1 and 2 and the latrine portion behind the shop rooms were allotted to the petitioner in the year 1976. Later, the portion behind the staircase was leased out to the petitioner in the year 1977. Ext.P1 is the lease agreement dated 03.01.1997 entered into by the petitioner with the Board in respect of shops 1, 2 and 3 and the space under the staircase. In Ext.P1, the rent was fixed as Rs.856/- per month. Exts.P2 to P4 are the agreements by which the lease deed was renewed.The revised rent payable as per Ext.P4 agreement executed for the period from 01.06.2005 to 31.05.2008 was Rs.3,175/-. 2. The Executive Engineer of the Board, the 2 nd respondent, issued Ext. P5 letter to the petitioner stating that the petitioner has been occupying an additional area of 297.62 square feet (comprising the extended portion and the area beneath the staircase), which does not fall within the scope of the lease deed. The petitioner was directed to demolish the construction made by him enclosing the common toilet. By Ext.P6, the 2 nd respondent fixed the rent for the shop rooms at Rs.6,350/-. The petitioner states that the amount demanded in Ext.P6 is exorbitant. The 2 nd respondent issued Ext.P11 letter asking the petitioner to enter into fresh lease deed at the enhanced rate. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Board against the fixation of rent, but the Chairman of the Board, by Ext.P14 order, rejected the appeal and directed the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction enclosing the toilet and staircase, and to restore the building to its original condition. It was also ordered that fresh lease agreement should be executed in respect of the excess area. The Executive Engineer by Ext.P15 letter informed the petitioner that if the unauthorised construction is not demolished, the Board will carry out the work at the cost of the petitioner. Later, the Executive Engineer issued Ext.P16 letter informing the petitioner that an excess area of 297.7 sq.ft. The Executive Engineer by Ext.P15 letter informed the petitioner that if the unauthorised construction is not demolished, the Board will carry out the work at the cost of the petitioner. Later, the Executive Engineer issued Ext.P16 letter informing the petitioner that an excess area of 297.7 sq.ft. has been unauthorisedly occupied by the petitioner from the beginning of the tenancy without any lease agreement or paying rent and the petitioner was asked to surrender the excess area and to clear the arrears of rent for the excess area. The petitioner states that the Executive Engineer physically checked the measurement and submitted Ext.P17 report stating that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of an area of 297.62 sq.ft. 4. Challenging Exts.P14 and P16, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 5067 of 2010 and this Court, by Ext.P18 judgment , directed the Executive Engineer to take steps for a joint measurement of the building with notice to the petitioner and to pass fresh orders and to maintain status quo till then. 5. The 2 nd respondent, passed Ext.P20 order finding that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of an area of 436.34 sq. ft and directing to vacate the whole area under his occupation by 31.05.2011 after clearing the entire dues including the rent for the excess area at the market rate of rent fixed by the Board. 6. Against Ext.P20, the petitioner preferred Ext.P21 appeal to the Government under Section 87 of the Kerala State Housing Board Act . The Government, by Ext.P22 order, held that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the order passed by the Executive Engineer and directed the petitioner to surrender the excess area forthwith and to remit the rent arrears along with interest as per the standard terms of the Board within seven days of receipt of the order for the area legally occupied by him and to enter into fresh lease agreement as per the conditions laid down by the Board. The Government also ordered that for the unauthorised occupation of the area of 436.34 sq. ft, the rent arrears, as fixed by the Board, will be applicable. 7. The petitioner states that Exts.P1 to P4 lease agreements would clearly show that the staircase portion, now referred to as the unauthorised occupied area, was included as part of the leased premises for which the petitioner has been paying rent. ft, the rent arrears, as fixed by the Board, will be applicable. 7. The petitioner states that Exts.P1 to P4 lease agreements would clearly show that the staircase portion, now referred to as the unauthorised occupied area, was included as part of the leased premises for which the petitioner has been paying rent. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P11, P14, P15, P17, P20 and P22. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that no excess area has been unauthorisedly occupied by him. The petitioner contends that Ext.P22 order was issued by the Government without any application of mind, and that none of the points raised by the petitioner in the appeal was considered therein. It is further contended that the petitioner is not in unauthorised occupation of any area as alleged in Exts.P20 and P22, and that the lavatory, toilet, and the space beneath the staircase would come under the petitioner’s authorised occupation. The petitioner asserts that the area beneath the staircase was included in the lease and that rent has been regularly paid for it. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 are bound to adhere to the terms and conditions of the lease agreement and can collect only fair rent as fixed by the Government. It is also contended that frequent revision and enhancement of rent is unauthorised and cannot be enforced. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, denying the averments in the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the lavatory, staircase, and common toilet. Pursuant to a joint inspection conducted in compliance with the directions in Ext.P18 judgment , the petitioner was found to be in unauthorised occupation of an area measuring 436.34 sq. ft. Accordingly, Ext.P20 order was issued, directing the petitioner to vacate the unauthorised area. It is further stated that the petitioner has not renewed the lease. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government, stating that the petitioner had carried out unauthorised construction in contravention of the terms of the lease agreement. Although the petitioner was directed to demolish the unauthorised construction, he failed to comply. The excess area occupied by him was not surrendered. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government, stating that the petitioner had carried out unauthorised construction in contravention of the terms of the lease agreement. Although the petitioner was directed to demolish the unauthorised construction, he failed to comply. The excess area occupied by him was not surrendered. Pursuant to Ext.P18 judgment , the 2 nd respondent conducted a joint measurement and issued Ext.P20 order, finding that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of an area measuring 436.34 sq. ft. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Government by Ext.P22 order. The petitioner was directed to surrender the excess area forthwith and to remit the rent arrears with interest by entering into a fresh lease agreement with the Board. It is further stated that, as per the current policy followed by the Board, there is a 20% enhancement of rent every three years. However, the petitioner has neither paid the enhanced rent nor renewed the lease agreement with the Board. 10. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 15.09.2022, respondents 1 and 2 have filed an affidavit detailing the rent allegedly due from the petitioner for the period from 01.06.2002 to 16.08.2008. They have also produced details regarding the rent currently being collected for similar rooms in the same premises. 11. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit disputing the rent claimed to be due. It is further stated that Ext.R1(d) closing statement, produced along with the affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, cannot be relied upon to decide the disputed issues. 12. In the nature of the controversies involved in the writ petition, this Court suggested the parties to explore the possibility of settlement through mediation and the matter was referred for mediation before the Kerala Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court of Kerala. The Mediator submitted a report stating that in spite of parties and counsel being present on various joint and individual sessions, the case could not be settled. 13. Heard Smt. Sindhu Santhalingam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Harish Vasudevan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Board and the learned Government Pleader. 14. Though the writ petition has been filed primarily challenging Ext.P20 order of the 2 nd respondent which found the petitioner to be in unauthorised occupation of an area of 436.34 sq. ft. 13. Heard Smt. Sindhu Santhalingam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Harish Vasudevan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Board and the learned Government Pleader. 14. Though the writ petition has been filed primarily challenging Ext.P20 order of the 2 nd respondent which found the petitioner to be in unauthorised occupation of an area of 436.34 sq. ft. and directed him to vacate the entire area after clearing the dues, and Ext.P22 order of the Government confirming the same, the arguments have largely focused on the rent paid by the petitioner and the rent payable. The propriety of enhancement of rent by the Board was also called in question by Smt.Sindhu. It is contended that the petitioner is not in unauthorised occupation of any area as alleged, and that rent has been paid for the area beneath the staircase, which was included in the subsequent lease deed. Smt.Sindhu further contends that in Exts.P16 and P17, the alleged excess area was stated to be 297.7 sq. ft., whereas after the joint measurement, Ext.P20 records the excess area as 436.34 sq. ft. She points out that this discrepancy arose because the demolished area was also included in the measurement, resulting in an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference with Exts.P20 and P22. It is further contended that the demolition of the alleged unauthorised structures was carried out without notice to the petitioner, and the inclusion of the demolished area for calculating the rent is illegal and arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the increase in the rent by 157% during June 2002 to October 2003 without a Board resolution is contrary to the provisions of the Kerala State Housing Board Act . Smt.Sindhu further contends that the direction in Exts.P20 and P22 to vacate the premises has been passed without adverting to the provisions contained in Section 85 of the Kerala State Housing Board Act . Accordingly, it is prayed that Exts.P20 and P22 may be set aside and this Court may declare that no excess area has been unauthorizedly occupied by the petitioner. 15. Sri.Harish Vasudevan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Board would contend that the writ petition is not maintainable as the issue raised involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition. 15. Sri.Harish Vasudevan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Board would contend that the writ petition is not maintainable as the issue raised involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner had blocked the portion containing the toilet and staircase, which was used by other tenants, and the Executive Engineer had directed the petitioner to restore the toilet area following a mass petition. A lease agreement, excluding the space underneath the staircase and the toilet/lavatory area, was executed with the respondent Board, and these excluded portions were not reallocated to the petitioner. However, the petitioner continued in unauthorised occupation of the area underneath the staircase, and the 2 nd respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the excess area. Pursuant to Ext.P18 judgment , a joint measurement was taken, and the 2 nd respondent passed Ext.P20 order, finding that the petitioner had unauthorisedly occupied an area of 436.34 sq.ft. Sri.Harish contends that the demolition of the unauthorized construction was carried out after issuing 15 days’ notice to the petitioner. It is also contended that there is no illegal enhancement of rent and the rent rate in October 1997 was increased without Board resolution since the rent collected from the tenants of Jawahar Nagar shopping complex compared to other premises was very low. 16. I have given anxious consideration to the contentions put forth by both sides. The arguments advanced at the time of hearing are largely beyond the pleadings in the writ petition. Though the parties were referred for mediation, the matter could not be settled. The issues regarding unauthorised occupation, demolition of the alleged unauthorised structure, and the rent paid and payable, are all matters that this Court cannot adjudicate upon in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the orders passed by the Board and the Government. With the passage of time, during the pendency of this writ petition, there may have been further resolutions of the Board enhancing the rent for the shop rooms in the shopping complex. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner should be permitted to submit a detailed representation regarding his surviving grievances before the 1 st respondent Board. The Board can have an examination of the factual aspects of the dispute. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner should be permitted to submit a detailed representation regarding his surviving grievances before the 1 st respondent Board. The Board can have an examination of the factual aspects of the dispute. It will be open to the petitioner to submit such a representation highlighting his grievances. If such a representation is filed within a period of one month from today, the 1 st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of the representation, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Till such time orders are passed as directed above, there shall be no coercive proceedings against the petitioner. 17. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.