Binay Kumar Sinha and Others vs Union of India and Others

S. Chandrashekhar, J.

Seeking quashing of notice dated 29.8.2013 and 9.11.2013, the petitioner have approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners were allotted Heavy Engineering Corporation quarters for storage purpose. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were allotted quarter at the rate of Rs. 55/- per month and the petitioner No. 3 was allotted at the monthly rent of Rs. 85/-. The petitioners were working as contractors with Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi and they had been paying rent as fixed by the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi. However, after more than 10 years, notices were served upon the petitioners directing them to pay outstanding amounts.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the notices issued to the petitioners are arbitrary. Without issuing notice to the petitioners and without hearing the petitioners, the rent could not have been enhanced by the respondents. The respondents were under a duty to resort to provision under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The Circular dated 27.5.2009 under which the rent has been allegedly enhanced was never brought to the notice of the petitioners.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-H.E.C. refers to the allotment letter dated 4.8.2001 and submitted that the rent fixed was provisional and it was subject to revision at the discretion of Corporation with retrospective effect. Moreover, the rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 55/- and Rs. 85/- more than 10 years ago and therefore, the petitioners cannot take a plea that the rent cannot be enhanced by the respondent H.E.C.

I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

It appears that vide allotment letters dated 4.8.2001, 8.1.1999, 28.8.2002 and 12.3.2003, the petitioners were allotted quarters provisionally for six months. The petitioners themselves have contended that they were working as contractors with H.E.C. and for storage purposes, they were allotted quarter, initially for a period of six months. The petitioners'' only objection is with respect to enhancement of the rent vide notices dated 29.8.2013 and 9.11.2013. The allotment letter referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent-H.E.C. makes it clear that the rent fixed at the initial stage was provisional and it was subject to revision. Moreover, I find that the quarters were allotted to the petitioners for storage purposes which obviously was for the period during the currency of contract with the H.E.C. Merely because quarters were allotted to the petitioners for storage purposes, the petitioners cannot claim a legal right in themselves for retaining the quarters at the rate fixed more than 10 years back. There is no legal duty in the respondent-H.E.C. to permit the petitioners to continue to retain the quarters at the earlier rates. In view of the above, there was no necessity for issuing a show-cause notice to him. I find no merit and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.