Sushil Kumar vs Deputy Commissioner and Others

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—Shop/Plot No. 13 was allotted on lease hold basis to one Shri Mukat Ram son of Shri Bakhtawar Singh. This plot was sublet to the appellant. It appears that Shri Mukat Ram son of Shri Bakhtawar Singh was also the allottee of Shop/Plot No. 14 and that too was sublet by him to one Shri Kulbhushan Kumar. These allotments were on lease hold basis and there was default in payment of the lease amount. Shri Kulbhushan Kumar sought transfer of the allotment on lease hold basis as per the then prevalent policy on payment of the rent for the past ten years as transfer fee. On the other hand, the appellant made a request to deposit the subletting fee and rent. The respective requests were accepted by the Municipal Council on 17.08.2001. The resolutions in favour of the appellant and Shri Kulbhushan Kumar No. 571 and 572 respectively were passed.

It, however, appears that subsequently before the Commissioner, the appellant volunteered to pay the transfer fee.

The aforesaid facts appear from the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, wherein in para No. 5 (xiii), it has been stated that the Municipal Council took the subletting fee for ten years in the name of sublettes being appellant and Shri Kulbhushan Kumar against Plot Nos. 13 and 14 respectively and agreed to make rent deeds in their names. It is, however, further stated that the Deputy Director, Urban Local Bodies, Patiala vide a letter dated 14.09.2001 imposed a ban on the said resolutions and demanded report in detail. A reply was sent by the Municipal Council on 26.09.2001. Deputy Director vide his letter dated 18.10.2001 sought further details qua resolution No. 571 of the appellant but vacated the ban on resolution No. 572 in favour of Shri Kulbhushan Kumar and directed to take action in accordance with instructions. Thus, the allotment stood transferred on lease hold basis in favour of Shri Kulbhushan Kumar qua Shop/Plot No. 14.

The only plea urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has not been meted a similar treatment, though he is identically situated. It was the same person, who created two sub-tenancies in respect of his two Plots, i.e., one in favour of the appellant and another in favour of Shri Kulbhushan Kumar. The case of Shri Kulbhushan Kumar stands regularised as per the then policy, whereby the allotment on lease hold rights stand transferred on payment of ten years lease amount and, thus, the appellant should also be treated identically.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has not been able to point out to us any distinguishing feature in the case of the appellant as compared with Shri Kulbhushan Kumar, other than to point out the averments which we have dealt with aforesaid. We, thus, find no reason why in similar circumstances, the appellant should be treated differently from Shri Kulbhushan Kumar.

We are, thus, of the view that the appellant is entitled to lease hold rights being transferred in his name on the same terms and conditions and on parity with the case of Shri Kulbhushan Kumar and, thus, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 will communicate upto date charges due from the appellant within one month from today. The appellant is granted one month time from the date of receipt of the letter to clear outstandings and continue to pay future lease amounts. To the extent the amount has remained outstanding from the appellant, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are held entitled to charge 12% simple interest on the over due amount from the date of accrual till date of deposit. This is on parity with the directions issued by us in LPA No. 903 of 2009 (Satwinder Singh Versus Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur & others), decided on 14.08.2013. In case of default in payment of rent in future, any two defaults would entitle respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to voluntary surrender of the possession of the premises/shop by the appellant to the Municipal Council and the counsel for the appellant undertakes on behalf of the appellant in these terms. The appellant will file a formal undertaking within two weeks in terms of aforesaid with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the Municipal Council.

We may note that while two appeals have been decided in terms of the impugned order, other appeal arising from the same order, LPA No. 903 of 2009 was disposed of separately on 14.08.2013 as the factual matrix was found to be different from the one as discussed in the impugned order. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.