AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 25.04.2009 passed in Case No. 1/2009 (Annexure-A) and the order dated 16.11.2009 passed in MA No. 8/2009 impugned at Annexure-B to the petition.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the petition papers.
The fact that the Petitioner was initially occupying the premises belonging to the Respondents under an authorisation given by the Respondents is not in dispute. However, subsequently, the authorisation given by the Respondents to the Petitioner to occupy the premises in question was withdrawn with effect from 01.07.2002. Thereafter construing the Petitioner as unauthorised occupant of the premises, proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' for short) was initiated against the Petitioner. The said proceedings culminated before this Court in W.P. No. 30694-30695/2004 which was disposed of on 04.08.2004. Though this Court did not choose to interfere with the order dated 27.01.2003 passed by the Estate Officer and the order dated 13.07.2004 passed by the Prl. District . Judge as appellate authority in MA No. 9/03, this Court granted 15 months time to the Petitioner to vacate the premises in question. Subsequent thereto, the Respondents initiated proceedings in Case No. 1/09 under the provisions of the Act claiming damages for the unauthorised occupation of the premises for the periods from 01.07.2002 to 30.10.2005. Accordingly, the damages was imposed by the order dated 25.04.2009. The Petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal in MA No. 8/2009 before the Prl. District Judge, Mysore. The Prl. District Judge by the order dated 16.11.2009 affirmed the order imposing damages and therefore, the Petitioner is before this Court.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the question that would arise for consideration in the instant case is as to whether the damages as imposed in respect of the unauthorised occupation of a public premises could be permitted in the instant case, since there is an intervening circumstances viz., the leave granted by this Court in W.P. No. 30694-30695/2004 permitting the Petitioner a period of 15 months to vacate the petition schedule premises. In the said proceedings, as noticed the question which came up for consideration before this Court was regarding the eviction of the Petitioner from the premises concerned. Though this Court had upheld the order passed by the Estate Officer as well as the appellate Court, the time was granted to vacate the premises thus permitting the occupation for that period.
A perusal of the order would indicate that grant of time had not been qualified by this Court with any conditions by indicating as to whether the Petitioner would continue on payment of the same amount which was being paid as the licence fee prior to the withdrawal of the authorisation or any other quantum of licence fee would be paid by the Petitioner to continue in the premises. It is in that circumstance the case at present would have to be looked at from a different point though in a normal circumstance, the Respondents would have been entitled to claim damages in respect of the unauthorised occupation of the public premises.
If these aspects of the matter are kept in view and considering the fact that this Court had not imposed any conditions at that point when the order dated 04.08.2004 was passed and also taking note of the fact that the Petitioner in fact had vacated the premises on 30.10.2005 before expiry of the period of 15 months which had been granted by this Court, I am of the opinion that the damages in the nature as imposed by the Respondents in respect of the premises taking the market rent as on the date when the order was made by the Estate Officer cannot be imposed. In the instant case, while granting time itself it would have been open for this Court to indicate what would be the nature of damages that would have to be paid for the continued occupation of the premises. Be that as it may, since I have already noticed that the damages in the instant case cannot be imposed at the rate as it existed in respect of similar premises or the same premises concerned as on 30.10.2005, the actual payment of damages requires to be moderated. In this regard, the records would disclose that in fact even though the authorisation was withdrawn on 01.07.2002, the Petitioner had continued in the premises only for the reason that the Petitioner was in a statutory appeal before the District. Court and thereafter before this Court assailing the order passed by the Estate Officer.
Therefore, in the instant circumstance, the Petitioner was in fact availing his legal remedies and ultimately this Court while upholding the order of eviction had granted 15 months time and as such the very market rent as it existed cannot be imposed for the said reason. However, considering the fact that the rent which existed as on 01.07.2002 was a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month, marginal yearly increase in any event would have been permitted even if the occupation was authorised and therefore, for the said period of three years, even if a marginal increase per year is taken, the increase in the damages can be imposed at Rs. 1,500/- per month for the said period between 01.07.2002 to 30.10.2005. Therefore, in my view, the damages in any case can be fixed at Rs. 3,500/- per month instead of the damages of Rs. 6,000/- per month fixed by the Estate Officer and upheld by the appellate Court. Hence, in the peculiar facts of the instant case, it is held that the amount recoverable by the Respondent herein from the Petitioner for the periods from 01.07.2002 to 30.10.2005 would be at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month inclusive of the original licence fee of Rs. 2000/- per month. The balance, if any payable shall be paid by the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if the arrears is not paid within the period of two months, in such event, the amount of arrears will carry interest at the rate of 8% p.a. after the expiry of two months period granted by this Court.
With the above modification and directions, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.