Central Information Commission
Harji Ravji Patel vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 16 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/LICOI/A/2023/113136 and CIC/LICOI/A/2023/120539.
Harjibhai R Patel .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
LIC of India,
Western Regional Office, "Yogakhem",
Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai - 400021 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09-05-2024
Date of Decision : 15-05-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision as
these are based on similar RTI Applications of the same appellant.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI applications filed on : 18-10-2022, 21-10-2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record, 16-11-2022
First appeals filed on : 28-11-2022
First Appellate Authority orders' : 23-12-2022
2nd Appeals/Complaint dated : 16-03-2023
Page 1 of 10
CIC/LICOI/A/2023/113136
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"a) Subject matter of Information:
The payment of increased property taxes vide your letter no. EST/MTARRS. Rent Dtd. 27-7-1997.
b) The period to which information required:
April 94, April 96, & April 97
c) Specific Details of Information required:
Under which BMC rules the recovery of payments of taxes from the tenants if the basic lack of facility of availability of water supply from landlord to bonafied tenants and specific BMC documents related to increase in property taxes to be recovered from to tenants."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28-11-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 23-12-2022, held as under:
"The matter has been revisited by the concerned office of the respondent organization. The Regional Manager, Estates, ie deemed CPIO, has informed as follows: "We stand by our previous reply given in response to the RTI application dated 21.10.2022".
During the personal hearing, the RTI Appellant has agreed to the advice of First Appellate Authority to approach BMC for clarification in the matter. I am satisfied and stand by the reply given by deemed CPIO and the appeal of Mr. Harjibhai R Patel is, therefore, disposed of."
CIC/LICOI/A/2023/120539 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21-10-2022 seeking the following information:
"a) Subject matter of Information:
Revised Rent calculations as per enclosed copy of attested your office note no. EX.A.5 Dtd 6-9-2022.Page 2 of 10
b) The period to which information required: Feb 1998
c) Specific Details of Information required:
Used Revised formula stipulated as 25/35% for the revision of rent under which rule of authority."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16-11-2022 stating as under:
"The matter was referred to the concerned department of the respondent organization and the information provided by the concerned department is as follows:
"The rent was revised as per 25/35 % formula in 1998 after mutual discussions with the applicant on 03.02.1998 and the applicant had agreed to the revision of rent of Rs. 1339/- per month (Basic rent of Rs. 911/- and Taxes of Rs. 428/-). The applicant has given his accord to the above terms of revision by signing the decision paper on 03.02.1998. Such revision of rental rate of the tenancies is the internal administrative decision of the concerned department of the Respondent organization; hence the information sought by the applicant pertains to commercial confidentiality of the Respondent organization and is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, since the matter is under litigation and subjudice before-1) Estates Court under Case No. 1 & 1A of 2015 for Arrears of rent (Rs. 669287 from 01.04.2004 to 31.07.2014), Damages (from 01.08.2014 till date of possession @ Rs. 74609/- per month) and Eviction from said premises le TC no. 5920 2) Small Cause Court under R.A.N 26/2015 for fixation of Standard rent and in 3) High Court - under Case No. CRA/620/2019 as the concerned department has appealed against him for case in Small Cause Court as the case under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 does not fall in the jurisdiction of Small Cause Court; information sought cannot be provided as of now."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28-11-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 23-12-2022, held as under:
"Mr. Harjibhai R Patel had preferred Offline RTI application dated 21.10.2022, seeking Information under RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO/WZO had replied to the Applicant vide letter dated 16.11.2022. The Appellant has submitted Offline RTI Page 3 of 10 Appeal dated 05.12.2022. I have carefully examined the Appellant's RTI Application dated 21.10.2022, CPIO's reply dated 16.11.2022 and the Appeal dated 05.12.2022. The Personal Hearing as sought by the Appellant is granted on 21.12.2022.
In this regard, the Appellant is informed as follows:
The matter has been revisited by the concerned office of the respondent organization. The Regional Manager, Estates, ie deemed CPIO, has informed as follows: "With reference to personal hearing of RTI Appeal before First Appellate Authority on 21.12.2022, as advised by FAA, we are giving certified copy of extract of Estate Policy, ie page 13 which pertains to increase in rent rates".
I am satisfied and stand by the reply given by deemed CPIO and the appeal of Mr. Harjibhai R Patel is, consequently, disposed of.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Ms. P.G. Gomathi, Secretary (CRM)-cum-CPIO along with Ms. Sita Pathak present through video-conference.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Appellant vide letter dated 06-05-2024 sought adjournment in the matter owing to personal issues; however, his prayer is not accepted and the Commission deems it fit to decide the case on merits.
Respondent, Ms. P.G. Gomathi, Secretary (CRM)-cum-CPIO reiterated the contents of her written submissions dated 03-05-2024, contents of which (case-wise) are reproduced below -Page 4 of 10
CIC/LICOI/A/2023/113136 ".....The matter was again referred to Regional Manager (Estates), being the deemed PIO, for their observations and comments. Regional Manager (Estates), WZO forwarded their comments as under:
1) Rent under Tenancy Code no. 5920 is paid and adjusted upto 03/2004. The outstanding deposits under this Tenancy Code 5920 is Rs. 3,83,720.08, and the last date of Rent Deposit is 06.05.2016.
2) The Appellant (the tenant) has submitted letter dated 20.12.2022 regarding carpet area correction as 13.91 Sqmt. instead of 15.42 Sqmt. along with architect inspection report. However, the carpet area under Tenancy Code no.
5920 is 23.84 Sq.mt. (Base area 14.02 Sq.mt. and Mezzanine floor area 9.82 Sq.mt.) as per valuation report available with the department. Thereafter he has not approached Estates department of the respondent organization for payment, or any other matter related to Tenancy Code no. 5920 till date. Also, there is no written communication received from Tenant regarding Tenancy matters.
3) There is no information on record, whether the Tenant wrote to BMC office seeking clarifications regarding BMC Rules, and the reply of BMC office given to him, in the matter.
4) The municipal taxes as applicable are informed to the concerned department of the respondent organization by the BMC periodically and only the apportionment of Tax to be levied on Tenants is done by the Estates department as per the area occupied by the tenants.
5) The Building Inspection report dated 23.04.2024 along with photographs reveals that the Premises under Tenancy Code 5920 is occupied by Patel Stationery but the scanner pasted for payment shows the payment to Maheshwari Stationery which clearly proves illegal subletting of the rented premises as on date.
Page 5 of 106) Regarding Municipal taxes and rent applicable, appropriate information as available with the department has already been provided at the Application stage.
Further, the matter is under litigation and subjudice, as follows:
a) Before Estates Court, LIC of India: Under case no. 1 & 1A of 2015 for Arrears of Rent (Rs. 6,69,287/- from 01.04.2004 to 31.07.2014), Damages (From 01.08.2014 till date of possession @74,609/- per month) and Eviction from said premises under Tenancy Code No. 5920. The Appellant's Advocate attended the hearing in Estates court on 14.02.2024. Final arguments are done and the case is listed for final order.
b) Before Small Causes Court, Mumbai under R.A.N. Suit no. 26/2015 for Fixation of Standard rent. Application dated 29.07.2022 is filed by the Appellant to bring on record the following documents:
1) Demand Notice of 24.06.2014 from Advocate of Respondent organization.
2) Reply dated 07/10/2015 to demand notice dated 24/06/2014 tendering rent of Rs. 3,24,350/- as demanded, under protest and without prejudice and subject to refund.
3) Statement of rent paid.
4) Receipt issued by the respondent organization for rent paid of Rs.3,24,350.
Reply to the above application dated 29.07.2022 was given by respondent organization to the Appellant on 03.08.2023. The Next date of hearing is on 03.05.2024 in Small Causes Court, Mumbai.
c) Before High Court, Mumbai - The respondent organization has appealed under Case No. CRA/620/2019 against Shri Harjibhai R Patel for filing his case in Small Causes Court as the matter under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 does not come under the jurisdiction of Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The matter is at Pre-admission stage as on date. From above, It is absolutely clear that the information as available with the concerned department of the respondent organization has already been provided to the Appellant at the Application stage. The Personal Hearing before Page 6 of 10 the First Appellate Authority is also granted and it was clarified to the Appellant that information pertaining to BMC Rules regarding any recovery or increase in Taxes, is not available with the respondent organization and the Appellant can approach BMC for any clarifications in the matter. Further, the matter is subjudice in various courts as mentioned above. No further information remains to be provided in the matter.
It is submitted before Hon'ble CIC that point-wise, correct and appropriate reply regarding the information sought at Application and Appeal stage, has been provided to the Appellant, as available with the Office of Public authority. It further appears that the Appellant is harbouring a grievance of being evicted from the premises under Tenancy code no. 5920 for Non-payment of Rent, Damages and illegal sub-letting of the premises. The Appellant is not seeking information as envisaged under the RTI Act and is challenging the correctness of the information provided by the respondent organisation."
CIC/LICOI/A/2023/120539 "...The matter was again referred to Regional Manager (Estates), being the deemed PIO, for their observations and comments. Regional Manager (Estates), WZO forwarded their comments as under: "The rent was revised as per 25/35% formula in 1998 after mutual discussions with the applicant on 03.02.1998 and the applicant had agreed to the revision of rent, as per 25% as applicable in his case, of Rs. 1339/- per month (Basic rent of Rs. 911/- and Taxes of Rs. 428/-). The applicant has given his consent to the above terms of revision by signing the decision paper on 03.02.1998 (enclosed herewith). Further, as advised by the First Appellate Authority, the relevant extract of the Estate Policy followed by the respondent organization has already been provided to the Appellant.
The relevant point a) of page 13 of the Estate Policy is reproduced herewith-
"Any change of tenancy should be at market rate as far as possible after allowing for condition of the building, locality, floor area, duration of tenancy, etc. Lease agreement with escalation clause that sets forth at least 35% rise in rent/ licence fee If the agreement is for five years, or a minimum of 25% increase Page 7 of 10 where the agreement is for three years, is to be invariably insisted upon in such cases".
Further, the matter is under litigation and subjudice, as follows:
a) Before Estates Court, LIC of India: Under case no. 1 & 1A of 2015 for Arrears of Rent (Rs. 6,69,287/- from 01.04.2004 to 31.07.2014), Damages (From 01.08.2014 till date of possession @74,609/- per month) and Eviction from said premises under Tenancy Code No. 5920. The Appellant's Advocate attended the hearing in Estates court on 14.02.2024. Final arguments are done and the case is listed for final order.
b) Before Small Causes Court, Mumbai under R.A.N. Suit no. 26/2015 for Fixation of Standard rent. Application dated 29.07.2022 is filed by the Appellant to bring on record the following documents:
1) Demand Notice of 24.06.2014 from Advocate of Respondent organization.
2) Reply dated 07/10/2015 to demand notice dated 24/06/2014 tendering rent of Rs. 3,24,350/- as demanded, under protest and without prejudice and subject to refund.
3) Statement of rent paid.
4) Receipt issued by the respondent organization for rent paid of Rs.3,24,350.
Reply to the above application dated 29.07.2022 was given by respondent organization on 03.08.2023 to the Appellant. The Next date of hearing is on 03.05.2024 in Small Causes court, Mumbai.
c) Before High Court, Mumbai - The respondent organization has appealed under Case No. CRA/620/2019 against Shri Harjibhai R Patel for filing his case in Small Causes Court as the matter under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 does not come under the jurisdiction of Small Causes Court. The matter is at Pre-admission stage as on date.
From above, it is absolutely clear that the information as available with the concerned department of the respondent organization has already been provided to the Appellant at the Application stage. The Personal Hearing before the First Appellate Authority is also granted and the relevant extract of the Page 8 of 10 Estate Policy followed by the respondent organization has already been provided to the Appellant, at the Appeal stage.
The contention of the Appellant that the 25/35% rate is not agreeable to him does not come under the purview of RTI Act. The Appellant is seeking decision in the matter through RTI forum and is not seeking information as envisaged under the RTI Act. The Appellant is challenging the correctness of the information provided by the respondent organisation.
It is submitted before Hon'ble CIC that point-wise, correct and appropriate reply regarding the information sought at Application and Appeal stage, has been provided to the Appellant, as available with the Office of Public Authority. The domain of adjudication in the matter is out of purview of RTI Act. The CPIO can only provide information as available with the Office of Public Authority."
Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records observes that the main premise of the instant Appeal was unsatisfactory response from the CPIO. In response to which, the CPIO provided the available information earlier and again through her written submissions which are self-explanatory.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the replies of the CPIO as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act. It is noteworthy that the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to compile information as per the desire of the applicants under the ambit of the RTI Act, as the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, they cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to them.
In view of the above, no relief can be granted in the matters.Page 9 of 10
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु ि) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणर् सत्यापपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, LIC of India, Western Regional Office, "Yogakhem", Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai - 400021.Page 10 of 10
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)