Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Arguing for the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Virmani, Sr. Advocate strongly contended that the learned Estate Officer has wrongly and illegally assessed the damages after taking into consideration the amount of rent agreed between the respondent and one Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd. vide lease deed dated 24th April, 1997, which premises, as per the petitioner, were totally incomparable with the premises under the occupation of the petitioner. The contention raised by counsel for the petitioner was that the said Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd. was let out an area of approximately 30/40 sq.ft. by the respondent LIC on the ground floor and, therefore, the rent settled between the parties for such a small area could not have been compared to determine the amount of damages for larger area of 4587 sq.ft. under the occupation of the petitioner that too on the second floor. Counsel thus urged that only comparable lease to assess the amount of damages payable by the petitioner could be the lease executed by the respondent LIC with CMC Ltd. dated 20th January, 2000 wherein the rate of rent for the relevant period for tenanted premises on the second floor was settled at Rs. 25 per sq.ft per month. Counsel thus took an exception to the approach adopted by the learned Estate Officer and by the Appellate Court in assessing the amount of damages in respect of the leased premises of the petitioner @ Rs. 70 per sq.ft. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the learned Estate Officer sought to have given a fresh notice to the petitioner before finally deciding the application filed by the respondent under sub Section 3 of Section 7 of the Public Premises Act as the petitioner remained under the bona fide belief that with the handing over of the possession of the tenanted premises on 15.10.2003, the proceedings before the Estate Officer must have come to an end. Counsel for the petitioner also argued that the petitioner was declared as a sick industry under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the said Act, no recovery proceedings could lie against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner was a bonafide tenant of the respondent and by initiating eviction proceedings against the petitioner the respondent flouted the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Urban Development which prohibits eviction of bona fide tenants. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments :-

(b) The nature, size and standard of the accommodation available in such premises;
(c) The rent that would have been realised if the premises had been let on rent for the period of unauthorised occupation to a private person;
(d) Any damage done to the premises during the period of unauthorised occupation;
(e) Any other matter relevant for the purpose of assessing the damages."

As would be manifest from the above, the learned Estate Officer has to take into account the nature, size and standard of the premises in question and also as to what rent the premises would have fetched had it been let out for the period of unauthorized occupation to any private party. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner herein was that the learned Estate Officer should have calculated the damages payable keeping the lease between the respondent LIC and CMC dated 20.1.2000 wherein the rent was @Rs. 25 sq ft as the area is more comparable according to the premises in question than the area being let out under the lease with Bank of Tokyo Mistubishi Ltd. Admittedly, the company CMC is not a private person and the same is also a Government Company as the respondent and, therefore, a comparison between two Government Corporations for settling the amount of rent can certainly be different vis-à-vis the amount of rent determined by a Government Corporation with a private entity. There is thus basic fallacy in the argument of counsel for the petitioner that learned Estate Officer ought to have taken into consideration the rate of rent as was settled between the respondent LIC with CMC to assess the amount of damages for the premises under the occupation of the petitioner. In my considered view the Estate officer has correctly placed reliance on the lease of the respondent with Bank Of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd. which is a private party and as per the principle envisaged under rule 8 of the PP Rules reproduced hereinabove. It is no more res integra that the Government and the Government Corporations have indefeasible right to let out their premises at rent prevailing in the market so as to derive legitimate profits and earnings by letting out their premises and to ask for periodical increase in the rents. It would be useful to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jiwan Dass vs. LIC 194 Supp(3) SCC694 which has been reiterated time and again and the relevant para of which is reproduced as under: