Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 386 (DEL)

SHANTI DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA

1993-07-21

ARUN MADAN, B.N.KIRPAL

body1993
B. N. kirpal ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an old widow of 72 years of age and is owner of a house, the accommodation of which consists of 10 rooms (nine on the ground and one on the first floor), 2 W. Cs. and a verandah in Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. The petitioner made a mistake of wanting to let out the premises to Government and the premises were let out for running dispensary by Delhi Administration. The document relating to the leting out of the property is the handing over document which reads as follows:- "hoarding/taking over of accommodation consisting of ten rooms (nine on ground floor and one on first floor) 2 W. Cs and verandah in premises X-280, Raghubarpura, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi of Smt. Shanti Devi w/o late Shri Somnath Pandit V-196,arvind Mohalla,ghonda Delhi on 19. XII. 85 (AN) for the purpose of running Delhi Admn. Dispensary on rental basis. The rent to be assessed later by the Govt Agency. The accommodation has been occupied today -A/n". ( 2 ) NO lease deed was ex3executed when the said premises were let out The amount of went was not specified and all that was stated was that the rent will be assessed later by the government agency. The possession was taken over by the Delhi Administration on 19th December, 1985. ( 3 ) THE petitioner then kept on representing that she should be paid rent, of course, the respondents did not pay it. On 5th January, 1987, me petitioner was informed that the rent had been fixed at Rs. 3,981. 00 per month. In the additional affidavit which has been filed by the respondents it has been stated that the petitioner was asked to submit an application for fixation of rent in a proper form and after the same was submitted the Executive Engineer, PWD Division XXII (Delhi Administration) fixed the rent at Rs. 3,981. 00 per month. This was, however, cancelled by the Executive Engineer, PWD Division XXII (Delhi Admn.) on 4th February, 1987 on the plea that he was not empowered to issue the rent fixation certificate and the matter was referred to the Superintending Surveyor of Works-II, PWD (Delhi Administration ). 3,981. 00 per month. This was, however, cancelled by the Executive Engineer, PWD Division XXII (Delhi Admn.) on 4th February, 1987 on the plea that he was not empowered to issue the rent fixation certificate and the matter was referred to the Superintending Surveyor of Works-II, PWD (Delhi Administration ). ( 4 ) THE Chief Medical Officer, Delhi Administration, East Zone then referred the matter regarding the fixation of rent to the Deputy Assessor and Collector, M. C. D. , Shahdara on 8th September, 1987. The said officer vide letter dated 8th October, 1987 informed the Chief Medical Officer, East Zone that the average rent was at the rate of Rs. 5. 00 per sq. ft. covered area in the said area. The petitioner thereafter on 4th November, 1987 demanded the rent of Rs. 9875. 00 per month calculated at the rate of Rs. 5. 00 per sq. ft plea rent for tubes and fans and house tax. The actual rent calculated at the rate of Rs. 5. 00 per sq. ft. would come to Rs. 8341. 00 per month. ( 5 ) THE respondents did not take action on the said letter of 4th November, 1987written by the petitioner demanding the aforesaid rent but resubmitted the case to the PWD authority for fixation of rent. It appears that me rent fixation committee was constituted which fixed theent at the rate of Rs. 2719. 00 per month and thereafter the rent was paid to the petitioner in June, 1989, viz. 32 years after taking over the possession by the respondents. The petitioner represented against the said low fixation of rent but to no effect ( 6 ) IT appears to us that the decision of the respondents for determining the rent at Rs. 2715. 00 is completely arbitrary. As is evident form the document whereby the premises were handed over to the respondents the intention behind the agreement between the parties was that the rent would be assessed by the agency which would be occupying the premises. Be that as it may, ordinarily when the premises are let out the quantum of rent is agreed to between the lessor and the lessee. When for a number of months there was no response from the respondents the petitioner submitted her demand for rent being paid at the rate of Rs. 9875. 00 per month. Be that as it may, ordinarily when the premises are let out the quantum of rent is agreed to between the lessor and the lessee. When for a number of months there was no response from the respondents the petitioner submitted her demand for rent being paid at the rate of Rs. 9875. 00 per month. The agency which was occupying the premises viz. , Chief Medical Officer, East Zone had referred the question with regard to the fixation of rent to the Deputy Assessor and Collector, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The rent which was to be paid had to be the market rate and the Deputy Assessor and Collector assessed at the rate of Rs. 5. 00 per sq. ft. This assessment was made on the basis that two other buildings in the same area had been let out to the banks at the average rate of Rs. 5. 00 per sq. ft. This amount was agreed to by the Chief Medical Officer and it is the petitioner who was required to execute the relevant documents when by their letter dated 15th October, 1987, the Chief Medical Officer forwarded to the petitioner a speciman copy of the rent deed statement and required the petitioner to execute the rent agreement. The petitioner executed this document and forwarded the same to the respondents. It appears to us that the contract between the parties stood concluded when the data regarding the rent was forwarded to the petitioner who accepted the same and returned the document. It is true that formal rent agreement was not signed by the respondents, but to our mind what is relevant is that the Chief Medical Officer, who was occupying the building and the landlord agreed to the rent on 15th October, 1987. ( 7 ) THE fixation of rent could not have been arrived at unilaterally. The respondents were not correctly advised in referring the matter to the PWD and getting the low rent rate fixed. The rate should be the market rate as indicated by the rent prevailing in the locality and it is open to the respondents not to continue in possession if it appears that the rent is excessive but the rent had been assessed by the Deputy assessor and Collector on the request being made by the Chief Medical Officer and this rent has been accepted by the landlady. ( 8 ) WE, thereby, allow this writ petition and issue a writ of mandamus quashing the communication dated 10th May, 1989whereby the rent of the premises was fixed at the rate of Rs. 2719. 00 per month and we direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner rent at the rate of Rs. 5. 00 per sq. ft which comes to Rs. 8341. 00 per month. The arrears of rent should be paid to the petitioner from the date of taking over possession within two months from today. ( 9 ) THE future rent should also be paid at the rate of Rs. 5. 00 per sq. ft per month with effect from August, 1993 and the payment should be made of the said amount every calender month beginning from 10th September, 1993. The petitioner will be entitled to costs. Counsel s fees Rs. 1,000. 00.