Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pramod Kumar Gupta( Keshri) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 August, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 17 th OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 14781 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA (KESHRI) S/O LATE
SHRI RAM PRASAD GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 55
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: BUSINESSMAN
ADDRESSSHOP NO 01 ( GFROND FLOOR) NAGAR
PALIKA COMPLEX BANSUKALI CHOWK BEOHARI
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SIYARAM GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI SHANKAR
PRASAD GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS MAN SHOP NO. 02
(GROUND FLOOR) NAGAR PALIKA COMPLEX
BANSUKALI CHOWK BEOHARI DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. AMARNATH GUPTA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
ANKIT KESHARI S/O LATE SHRI AMARNATH
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS MAN SHOP NO. 04 (GROUND FLOOR)
NAGAR PALIKA COMPLEX BANSUKALI CHOWK
BEOHARI DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DILIP GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI RAM PRATAP
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS MAN SHOP NO. 06,07 (GROUND FLOOR)
NAGAR PALIKA COMPLEX BANSUKALI CHOWK
BEOHARI DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. KUSHLENDRA KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI
RAMCHANDRA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS MAN SHOP NO. 08
(GROUND FLOOR) NAGAR PALIKA COMPLEX
BANSUKALI CHOWK BEOHARI DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. PRAKASH GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI RAM GOPAL
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS MAN SHOP NO. 09 (GROUND FLOOR)
2
NAGAR PALIKA COMPLEX BANSUKALI CHOWK
BEOHARI DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. BIHARI LAL GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI DHARAMDAS
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS MAN SHOP NO. 18 (GROUND FLOOR)
NAGAR PALIKA COMPLEX BANSUKALI CHOWK
BEOHARI DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA S/O SHRI RAM
MANOHAR GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS MAN SHOP NO. 19
(GROUND FLOOR) NAGAR PALIKA COMPLEX
BANSUKALI CHOWK BEOHARI DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. RAM KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI SHYAM
SUNDER GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS MAN SHOP NO. 17
(GROUND FLOOR) NAGAR PALIKA COMPLEX
BANSUKALI CHOWK BEOHARI DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. RAM SUMIRAN BAIGA S/O SHRI MANGALI
BAIGA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS WOMAN SHOP NO. 05 (GROUND
FLOOR) NAGAR PALIKA COMPLEX BANSUKALI
CHOWK BEOHARI DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ATUL KUMAR RAI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN
ADMINISTRATION AND HOUSING DEAPRTMENT
R/O VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER URBAN ADMINISTRATION AND
HOUSING PALIKA BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. COMMISSIONER SHAHDOL DIVISION SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. COLLECTOR S H A H D O L DISTRICT SHAHDOL
3
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER MUNICIPAL
C O U N C I L BEOHARI DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.5 - BY SHRI OM PRAKASH DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the notices issued to them on 22.06.2023 by the respondent/Corporation asking them to vacate the shops allotted to them in the year 1989 for a period of 30 years.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the challenge is founded mainly on the ground that as per the stand taken by the respondent/Corporation in their reply that after expiry of period of lease, there is no provision in the lease itself for extension of lease, however, according to him in the meantime new Rules i.e. Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika (Achal Sampatti Ka Antaran) Niyam, 2016 (in short the 'Niyam, 2016') have come in which Rule-17 deals with renewal of the lease-deed, whereunder it is mentioned that if the original period of lease expired, then the same can be renewed for a further period of 30 years for the same purpose and while extending the period of lease, the lease rent can be enhanced to the extent of 1% of the market value of the shops. He submits that as per the provisions of the Niyam, 2016, the respondent/Corporation is bound to extend the lease for a further period of 30 years.
3. On the other hand, Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent/Corporation has opposed the submissions advanced by learned 4 counsel for the petitioners mainly on the ground that the petitioners have no right to claim renewal of lease because they have violated Clause-9 of the agreement and rented out the shops which were allotted to them to somebody else and created subtenancy whereas Clause-9 of the agreement very specifically prohibits from creation of any subtenancy. He has also submitted that there is no provision for renewal of lease and, therefore, the petitioners have no right to claim renewal of lease that too on the basis of provisions of the Niyam, 2016.
4. In response to aforesaid stand taken by learned counsel for respondent/Corporation, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since no notice has ever been issued to the petitioners, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation that too at the time of argument cannot be considered to be true unless proper opportunity is provided to the petitioners to rebut the said submission.
5. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, I am of the opinion that indisputably no notice was ever issued to the petitioners by the respondent/Corporation informing them that they have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and, therefore, they are liable to be evicted from the shops leased out to them. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to ascertain whether Clause-9 of the agreement has actually been violated by the petitioners or not. However, if any term of the agreement is violated then prior notice is required to be given to the petitioners by the respondent/Corporation and then only any action can be initiated against them. In the existing scenario, I am allowing this petition directing the respondent/Corporation not to implement the impugned notices issued to the petitioners on 22.06.2023. However, if the respondent/Corporation finds that 5 the petitioners have actually violated any term of the agreement, then they may initiate fresh proceeding against them by giving opportunity to submit their stand. That apart, the respondent/Corporation is also directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in light of provisions of the Niyam, 2016 for renewal of lease and if the provisions of the Niyam, 2016 are not applicable upon the Municipal Corporation and benefit of the same cannot be granted to the petitioners, then an appropriate order assigning reasons shall be passed and communicated to the petitioners within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Devashish DEVASHISH MISHRA 2023.08.18 18:42:48 +05'30'