Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 13 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)124PLR472
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J.
1. Present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus seeking directions of this Court so declare that the action of the respondent-State in directing the respondent-committee to increase the rent of the property leased out to different persons by 20% vide impugned order dated 19.10.1987 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and for the quashment of the same.
2. The case set up by the petitioners is that the respondent-Committee owned different properties in Ambala City. The Committee constructed shops in different market area and leased them out. The method of leasing out the property is that the ownership remains with the Municipal Committee. Many times the property are let out to the highest bidders. Om Parkash, petitioner, took the shop in question on monthly rental of Rs. 710/- with effect from 23.1.1987 in a public auction and other petitioners were old tenants. According to the petitioners, the State Government issued a letter bearing No. 8/11/86/2K2 dated 19.10.1987 to the Municipal Committees requiring them to increase the rent every three years by 20%. The petitioners received notices dated 1.9.1992 from the Committee requiring them to execute fresh agreements/lease in favour of the Committee by agreeing to pay the enhanced rent. The petitioners represented to the respondent-Committee through their representations dated 17.9.1992 and 16.10.1992 and emphasized that the Ambala City is a 'C Class City and that the shop keepers in the area were not possessed of sufficient means to pay the increased rent and the increased rent was being demanded by the Committee irrespective of the situation/site and even in cases where the shops were allotted or auctioned for rent. The grouse of the petitioners is that this action of the Committee as contained in the letter dated 19.10.1987 is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and it was violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 according to the Committee, the shops were constructed in the year 1970, 1977, 1986 and 1988 and let out on rent by way of public auction. The minimum rent initially ranged between Rs. 90 and Rs. 750/- per month. The tenants continued to pay the rent initially fixed upto the year 1987 when the Government issued instructions dated 19.10.1987 directing the Municipal Committees to increase the rent of the shops where good rent was not received by 20% of every three years. The shops were rented out to the petitioners at the rates which were far below the prevailing market rates. For this reason, the respondents had issued the notices to the petitioners for the period of tenancy having elapsed and they were required to execute a fresh lease deed/agreement as per the conditions undertaken by them. The petitioners neither sought extension nor paid the increased rate agreed to by them and, thus, they have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by them. It is further stand of the Committee that while constructing the shops and in maintaining them, the Committee incurred huge expenses being a local body and a non-profit making institution. The Committee has also taken the stand that the Government is competent to issue the instructions to the Committee by laying a policy matter and the Committee being subordinate to the Government is duty bound to comply the instructions/policy matter of the State Government. Only the notices have been given to the petitioners like Annexure P-2. Against those notices, the petitioners have also filed their representations like Annexures 3 and 4 and the same would be considered provided the petitioners approach to the Committee.
4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case
5. Two points survive for determination in this case. The first point is regarding the competency of the State Government to issue the instructions/policy to the Municipal Committees. To this extent I am with the counsel for the respondents that the Government has the power to issue suitable and necessary instructions/policy to various Municipal Committees because the general supervision of the Committees and control remains with the State Government. The other points which survives for determination is whether the State Government or the Committees had the power to increase the rentals of the shop which were leased out to the petitioners. This power only vests with the Municipal Committees and not with the State Government. The grouse of the petitioners is that the Municipal Committees may blindly accept the directions of the State Government and increase the rents of the shops in question without considering their representations. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the properties are located in different parts of the city and it may be possible that a uniform policy may not be applicable to all the shops and such a matter can always be decided by the Municipal Committees at the negotiation table keeping in view the location and the market value of the rent as prevailing in that locality.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Committees will pass appropriate orders after considering the representations made by the petitioners in the light of the policy of the State Government. The petitioners may be directed to come to the negotiation table and discuss the matter and, thereafter, they might be called upon to pay the enhanced rent.
7. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the Committee is justified. The present petition is disposed of with the directions to the Committee that before acting upon the notices it shall take note of the representations made by the petitioners and then to decide whether the petitioners are liable to pay any enhanced rent and, if so, from which date. The necessary action shall be taken by the Municipal Committee within two months from the receipt of the copy of this order.