Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Sewak Ram Nanak Ram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 August, 2015
W.A. No.499/2015
1
05.08.2015
Shri Vishal Dhagat, Advocate and Shri N.L. Bachwani,
Advocate for the appellants.
Shri A.A. Barnad, Government Advocate for the
respondent Nos.1, 3, 6 & 7-State.
Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate with Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5.
Heard counsel for the parties on admission.
This writ appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 27.07.2015 in W.P.No.11871/2015. By this writ petition the appellants had challenged the order dated 2.7.2015 passed by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti with further direction to the respondents to follow due process of law.
In substance, the order impugned in the writ petition calls upon the appellants to vacate the premises in their possession within the Mandi area and ownership whereof is vested in the Mandi as the Mandi has been shifted to another area, failing which action would proceed against the occupants of the concerned premises treating them as unauthorized occupants in terms of Section 22 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1972.
The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the finding that on the establishment of new Krishi Upaj Mandi W.A. No.499/2015 2 Samiti, shops have been allotted to the writ-petitioners but the writ-petitioners intend to continue at the old place which cannot be countenanced as the old place has already been denotified. The argument of the writ-petitioners is, however, that they were occupying the premises in old Mandi area as tenants.
Notably, no contractual agreement in support of this contention has been produced alongwith writ petition nor such express case is made out in the writ petition.
Reliance placed on receipts issued from time to time by the Mandi, cannot be the basis to assume that there was relationship of landlord and tenant or lessor and lessee between the parties. The possession of the appellants in the respective premises/shops was only as licensor and licencee and nothing more, keeping in mind the provisions of the Mandi Act.
The argument of the appellants that in the reply filed by the respondents it is admitted that the appellants were occupying the premises as tenants does not commend to us. Some loose observation made in the affidavit cannot be the basis to create any right in favour of the parties, much less in the nature of landlord-tenant relationship. The Mandi area once notified, the occupancy of premises is governed by the provisions of Mandi Act and the Rules framed thereunder. No provision in the Act of 1972 or any Rules framed thereunder, have been brought to our notice which may entitle the appellants to assert that the relationship was that of landlord and tenant and cannot be terminated in the manner resorted to by W.A. No.499/2015 3 the respondents. Notably, it is conceded that the provisions of M.P.Rent Act do not apply to the case on hand.
The impugned order, in our opinion, has been passed keeping in mind the provisions of Act of 1972 and Rules framed thereunder for ensuring compliance of the notification issued by the competent Authority to de-notify the area as Mandi was and to shift all the shops within the old area to the newly established Mandi. The very purpose for which new Mandi has been established would be completely defeated if the argument of the appellants that they are entitled to continue in the old premises which was earlier occupied by them on the old Mandi area was to be accepted. This aspect and including the rights of the appellants to get a shop in the new Mandi area is considered in W.P.No.15957/2014 decided on 27.11.2014.
The relationship of landlord and tenant can be created only by way of contract or at best statutory protection available to the occupants. In the Act of 1972, as aforesaid, there is nothing to indicate that relationship of appellants with the Mandi can be treated one as that of landlord and tenant.
Furthermore, the impugned order being in the nature of terminating the occupancy/licence of the premises in question, the continuous occupation of the premises would result in unauthorized occupation and for which reason it is open to the Authority to resort to remedy under Section 22 of the Act for removal of such encroachment. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the final conclusion reached by the learned Single W.A. No.499/2015 4 Judge in dismissing the writ petition being devoid of merits.
Counsel for the Mandi has brought to our notice that out of 23 writ-petitioners, 15 writ-petitioners have already been allotted shops in the new Mandi after they participated in the auction process. It was open to the appellants (writ-petitioners) to participate in the auction process for allotment of shop. Since there are other vacant shops, in due course auction process will be held in which the appellants are free to participate, if eligible in all respects which is a matter to be considered by the appropriate Authority. Besides this, we do not wish to observe anything more and dismiss the appeal.
At this stage, counsel for the appellants submits that at- least on humanitarian consideration, the respondents be called upon to consider whether the appellants can be permitted to occupy the shops in the old Mandi area until end of September, 2015. It is open to the appellants to make representation to the appropriate Authority, which may consider it in accordance with law within one week from the date of receipt thereof. The representation, however, should be made on or before 10.08.2015, failing which it will be open to the appropriate Authority of Mandi to proceed in the matter in accordance with law against the concerned occupants.
(A. M. Khanwilkar) (J.K.Maheshwari)
Chief Justice Judge
shukla