AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anoop V. Mohta, J.—By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the demand notices/communications of rent of various years dated 16.10.1990, 12.9.1992, 8.7.1992 & 18.1.1993. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22.2.1993 there is a stay to the said demand notices and also to the eviction. We have noted that there was no notice of any eviction and/or prayer for stay of such eviction.
Admittedly, the petitioner was allotted plot no.1 admeasuring 96 sq. meter situated at Ghat Road, Nagpur which is in the business area of Nagpur city. The said allotment was for the purpose of workshop. An agreement was executed between the parties on 1.4.1986. The petitioner had admitted the terms and conditions of the said agreement. There was no separate agreement entered into thereafter till this date. Admittedly, that agreement was for one year.
Respondents pursuant to the Board Circular dated 17.9.1985 claimed revised license fee. The petitioner has knowledge about the said demand dated 19.3.1986. The basis for demand is explained in paragraph nos. 14 & 15 which read as under:
That the fixation of the license fee has been made as per the market value of the land and other considerations as mentioned in the Railway Board''s letter. The meeting of the Committee of the 3 Heads of the Departments was held on 13.12.1989 for deciding the revisions of license fee for railway land licensed for commercial purpose pertaining to Nagpur Division. The recommendations of the Committee were approved by the General Manager, Central Railway, Bombay, and after approval of the General Manager the same was implemented from 1.4.1986. These approved rates are pertaining to years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89. Accordingly, consolidated bill amounting to Rs. 76,282/- was sent to petitioner on 16.10.92 marked as Annexure G. While revising the license fee all norms and procedure were followed. Even the Revenue authorities and other local authorities were consulted and land values were obtained from them. It is submitted that prior to the issue of the revised bill the required notice was served to the petitioner on 20.12.1985 indicating that revision of license fee is due from 1.4.1986. The petitioner was also further informed if he does not accept the vacate the premises. It is a fact that the petitioner had paid the license fee to the Railway as per old rates, i.e. Rs. 4836/- p.a. up to 31.12.1989. But the petitioner has not paid the license fee at the revised rates. The first revision of license fee took place from 1.4.1986 as under: From 1.4.1986 to 31.3.1987 Rs. 8,664/-, From 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1988 Rs. 12,492/-, From 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1989 Rs. 16,320/- The second revision took place from 1.1.89 for a further period of 3 years as under:
From 1.1.1989 to 31.12.1989 Rs. 21,504/-, From 1.1.1990 to 31.12.1990 Rs. 21,504/-, From 1.1.1991 to 31.12.1991 Rs. 21,504/-.
The third revision took place from 1.1.92 for further period of 3 years as under :
From 1.1.1992 to 31.12.1992 Rs. 29,818/-, From 1.1.1993 to 31.12.1993 Rs. 29,818/-, From 1.1.1994 to 31.12.1994 Rs. 29,818/-,
That, it is submitted that there is no retrospective revision of licence fee as the petitioner was prior informed regarding the revision of license fee. The petitioner was issued notice on 20.12.85 that his license has come to an end on 31.12.85 and revised system of license fee is being implemented with effect from 1.4.86 with revised rates. By that letter the petitioner was further asked that if he does not agree to this, he will have to vacate the premises. The rates were revised from 1.4.86 as per report of the Committee and approved by the General Manager, Central Railway, Bombay, as per Railway board circular dt. 17.9.85 and the revised bills were sent to the petitioner for payment of the licence fee as intimated to him earlier on 20.12.1985. The second notice was issued to the petitioner in November 1990 that the revised license fee is to be implemented with effect from 1.1.89 and he was told that if he does not accept to this revision of license fee from 1.1.89 he will have to vacate the premises. Accordingly, a committee was set up to revise the rate from 1.1.89 and they have given their report on 17.3.92 and a circular was issued on 23.4.92 for revision of license fee from 1.1.89. That the revision of rates was to be made from 1.1.89 and was already informed to the petitioner in September-1990. In view of the above submission there is no revision of license fee retrospectively but the petitioner was already aware of this revision of license fee and he had also agreed to that and hence the petitioner is liable to pay the license fee as per the revised rates.
Even otherwise, having once agreed to the terms and conditions, challenge so raised to the revised license fee which was claimed by the respondents based upon the Circular and also on the foundation that the petitioner has agreed for the conditions which includes revision and which is reproduced as under :
C.2 : The License covered under this agreement will be on year to basis. The Licensee shall pay to the Railway Administration a sum of Rs. 4348/- P.A. in advance by way of license fee, as fixed by the Administration on the signing of this agreement, and subsequent payment shall be made in advance on the first day of January in each year during the continuance of this agreement. Provided Always that the annual license fee shall be subject to revision from time to time by the administration as may be determined by the Administration during the subsistence of this Agreement And the amount of the license fee so determined by the Administration on such revision shall be paid by the licensee. The revision of such license fee shall become effective from the date the revised license fee has been brought into force notwithstanding that the licensee is informed of such revised license fee is brought into force....
In view of this clause and agreed conditions, we are not inclined to accept the case of the petitioner as the same action of revision of rent is definitely within the power and authority of the respondents and as referred above, exercise the same pursuant to the circulars. Therefore, such action in no way be tested under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is difficult for the Court to accept the contention as raised, especially when the petitioner is in possession of the plot based upon the agreement/contract between the parties.
Therefore, taking all this into account, we see that there is no reason to interfere with the demand so raised by the respondents. However, it is made clear that whatever the amount paid by the petitioner, if any, shall be adjusted. However, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to make representation and put the grievance before the respondents. The respondents shall decide the representation and take action after the decision. The interim order so granted by this Court also stands vacated. The petition is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.