Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 345 (CAL)

SAMIR KUMAR ADDY v. UNION OF INDIA

2006-06-14

MAHARAJ SINHA

body2006
Before Mr. Justice Maharaj Sinha, JJ. ( 1 ) THE late father of the petitioners herein, Sudhir Kumar Addy, who was the owner of the Premises No. 97/1b, Hazra Road, Calcutta - 700 026, inducted union of India (Forest Survey of India, Eastern Zone) (Forest Department in short) as tenant of the 2nd Floor of the said premises with effect from 1st november, 1973 at a rental of Rs. 3,178. 56 paisa payable monthly according to English Calendar. At the time of commencement of the said tenancy, the said rent was arrived at on the basis of 0. 88 paisa per square feet for the total tenanted area of 3612 square feet. ( 2 ) THE terms and conditions of the above tenancy were recorded in a memorandum by the parties, namely the said Sudhir Kumar Addy on one hand (the then owner of the tenanted premises) and the representatives of the respondents herein. A copy of the said memorandum is annexed to the writ petition Marked as 'p-1. ( 3 ) AFTER commencement of the said tenancy or rather after expiry of about 10 years from the commencement of the said tenancy, the late father of the petitioners (in short Sudhir Kumar) addressed a letter to the Joint Director, forest Survey of India, Eastern Zone, who, I find, had his office at the said tenanted premises, requesting him to enhance the monthly rent of the said tenanted premises from "rs. 3,178. 56 paisa to Rs. 6,500/- per month on and from the month of January, 1984". The reasons for such request for enhancement of rent was that the rate of monthly rent of tenanted premises in general in West Bengal had gone up by "leaps and bounds specially in the town of Calcutta" and that "cost of living" also had gone up substantially than what it was in the year 1973 when the said tenancy, in fact, commenced. ( 4 ) IN spite of receipt of the said letter, the Joint Director or rather the forest Department did noting and the late Sudhir Kumar after expiry of more than 2 years from the date of his said first letter again wrote to the Joint Director, forest Department, requesting him to enhance the monthly rent from rs. 3,178. 56 paisa to Rs. 6,500/ -. 3,178. 56 paisa to Rs. 6,500/ -. Again on 20th March, 1986 the said Sudhir kumar addressed a letter to the Joint Director, Forest Department, as well as to the concerned Estate Manager requesting them primarily to enhance the rate of rent of the premises in question. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER, by a letter dated 18th July, 1986, Sudhir Kumar was asked by the Forest Department to furnish certain site plan and other documents which documents, perhaps, were required for the purpose of consideration of the request of the petitioners' father Sudhir Kumar for enhancement of the rate of rent of the premises in question and Sudhir Kumar furnished all the particulars as requested or asked for by the Forest Department and the documents sent by Sudhir Kumar were all received by the Forest Department. The then Joint Director of the Forest Department in his turn wrote to the Estate manager regarding the said enhancement of rent of the tenanted premises on 5th November, 1986 seeking "the Rent Reasonable Certificates" from him (the Estate Manager) on the revised rent of the "tenanted premises in question". ( 6 ) THE Joint Director, Forest Department, on 25th June, 1987 wrote to sudhir Kumar seeking certain informations and documents from him which were required for re-assessment of the rent of the tenanted premises. The particulars of documents sought for from Sudhir Kumar were all mentioned in the said letter. The late father of the petitioners, needless to mention, replied to the Joint Director's letter by his letter dated 1st July, 1987 giving all the informations as required by the Joint Director and furnishing the documents as sought for by the Joint Director in his said letter dated 25th June, 1987. ( 7 ) THE above letter dated 1st July, 1987 appears to be the last letter written by the petitioners' father Sudhir Kumar, as the next letter on record is dated 22nd November, 1993, the father of the petitioners must have left this mortal world between 2nd July, 1987 and 21st November, 1993, a fact cannot, however, be gathered from the records of the proceeding, more so from the statements in the writ petition. However, one thing is certain that having made a relentless effort to obtain enhancement of rent as the owner of the tenanted premises the said Sudhir Kumar Addy left this mortal world without any enhancement or rather without seeing any hope of such enhancement of rent of his tenanted property. ( 8 ) AS far as the records of the proceeding show, there was a long silence between the said letter of the petitioners' father, dated 1st July, 1987 and the second letter dated 22nd November, 1993 which letter was, in fact, written to the Joint Director of the Forest Department by the first petitioner herein, Samir kumar Addy, for himself and for and on behalf of the second petitioner Dilip kumar Addy as well. As far as the death of the father of the petitioners is concerned, it can faintly be made out from the statements made in Paragraphs-7 and 8 of the writ petition that the father of the writ petitioners left this world any date after 1 st July, 1987, as aforesaid, and before 22nd November, 1993. I cannot help wondering, why the exact date of death of the father of the petitioners has not been mentioned in the petition and also cannot be made out from any of the disclosed documents in this proceeding. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, the fact remains, there was a long silence, as aforesaid, between 2nd July, 1987 and 21st November, 1993. However, on 22nd november, 1993 the first petitioner, as aforesaid, wrote to the Joint Director stating how unfortunate it was that the Joint Director did not re-assess the rent of the tenanted premises in spite of several reminders to that effect. However, on 22nd november, 1993 the first petitioner, as aforesaid, wrote to the Joint Director stating how unfortunate it was that the Joint Director did not re-assess the rent of the tenanted premises in spite of several reminders to that effect. It was pointed out that no enhancement of rent took place from 29th December, 1983 to 28th December, 1988, from 29th December, 1988 to 28th December, 1993, in spite of several reminders and in spite of the fact that the third phase of re-assessment of rent of the tenanted portion from 29th December, 1993 to 29th December ,1998 was also to be done, the Joint Director was, thus, requested by the first petitioner to re-assess the rent of the tenanted premises right from 1983 to 29th December, 1993 on the basis of the said letter dated 22nd November, 1993 as well as the letters which were written to the authority concerned previously, namely on 29th December, 1983 and 1st July, 1987. Needless to mention that both first and the second petitioners herein became the owners of the tenanted premises or the premises in question after the death of their father, the said Sudhir Kumar Addy. ( 10 ) AFTER about one and half years from the said letter dated 22nd november, 1993 of the petitioners, the Joint Director on 29th March, 1995 seems to have made little movement as he wrote to the First Land Acquisition collector requesting him to "take immediate action as the landlord (was)pressing hard for revision of rent". ( 10 ) AFTER about one and half years from the said letter dated 22nd november, 1993 of the petitioners, the Joint Director on 29th March, 1995 seems to have made little movement as he wrote to the First Land Acquisition collector requesting him to "take immediate action as the landlord (was)pressing hard for revision of rent". ( 11 ) IN fact, after the said letter dated 29th November, 1993 of the first petitioner to the Joint Director, Forest Department, the following letters are mentioned in the writ petition: - (i) the above letter dated 29th March, 1995 from the Joint Director, forest Department, to the First Land Acquisition seeking certain formation for the purpose of re-assessment of rent of the tenanted premises; (ii) letter dated 27th April, 1995 by the first petitioner to the Joint director, Forest Department, requesting and reminding him that the rent should be enhanced with a copy of the said letter to the First Land acquisition Collector, the Estate Manager, the Director of Forest department and to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of environment; (iii) letter dated 13th September, 1999 from the Estate Manager to the First Land Acquisition Collector acknowledging petitioners' deposit of service charge for obtaining land value certificate of the tenanted premises; (iv) letter dated 16th September, 1999 from the office of the First land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, to the Estate Manager, Government of West Bengal, informing the Estate Manager that on the basis of the assessment of the land value of the tenanted premises in question, the land value thereof was assessed at Rs. 58,500/- per katha; the above valuation of land of the tenanted premises was, however, made by the office of the Land Acquisition Collector after the petitioners, as aforesaid, deposited 2 per cent of service charge imposed by the Government of West Bengal for issuing the required valuation certificate of land of the premises in question which certificate, however, was required by the Hiring Committee for the purpose of re-assessment of rent of the tenanted premises. ( 12 ) EVENTUALLY, on 13th December, 1999 the Hiring Committee, for the first time, made the necessary re-assessment of rent of the tenanted premises and sent such re-assessment or rather "fair rent certificates of such reassessment of rent" to the Joint director, Forest Department. ( 12 ) EVENTUALLY, on 13th December, 1999 the Hiring Committee, for the first time, made the necessary re-assessment of rent of the tenanted premises and sent such re-assessment or rather "fair rent certificates of such reassessment of rent" to the Joint director, Forest Department. Since, in my opinion, the said letter dated 13th December, 1999 and the text of the fair rent certificates of the Hiring Committee have the most important and material bearing upon the merits of this writ proceeding, both the text of the said letter and the text of one of such certificates, namely the certificate covering the first 4 years of re-assessment, effective from 29th December, 1983 for a period of 4 years, are set-out below: - ( 13 ) NEEDLESS to mention that the fair rent certificates issued by the Hiring committee for the subsequent period effective from 1 st July, 1987 ("for a period of 5 years each") to 16th March, 2004 were/are all in identical words as to the above mentioned certificate effective from 29th December, 1983. Copies of all the fair rent certificates and a copy of the said letter dated 13th December, 1999 are annexed to the Supplementary Affidavit of the petitioners affirmed on 25th June, 2002. ( 14 ) IT was submitted that since 29th December, 1983, when Sudhir kumar, the late father of the petitioners first wrote to the Joint Director for enhancement of rent, till the initiation of the writ proceeding by the petitioners the Forest Department or rather the concerned respondents tactfully avoided to enhance the rent of the tenanted premises on some pretext or the other. It is also stated in the petition: - "that from 1983 till date the predecessor-in-interest of your petitioners as well as your petitioners have been running from pillar to post to see to it that the reasonable rent if not a fair rent is available in respect of the tenanted property. " "all efforts and all co-operations on the part of your petitioners have proved to be of no use. Your petitioners call upon the respondents to produce before the Hon'ble Court a letter dated 16th March, 2000. " ( 15 ) IN support of the case of the petitioners, the petitioners have strongly relied on a letter written by the Joint Director to the Director, Forest Survey of india dated 3rd April, 2000. Your petitioners call upon the respondents to produce before the Hon'ble Court a letter dated 16th March, 2000. " ( 15 ) IN support of the case of the petitioners, the petitioners have strongly relied on a letter written by the Joint Director to the Director, Forest Survey of india dated 3rd April, 2000. For the sake of convenience the text of the said letter is set-out below: - ( 16 ) THE above-mentioned balance sheet was also strongly relied on behalf of the petitioners wherein the calculations of the suggested "enhanced rent" in detail were given by the Hiring Committee. ( 17 ) THE petitioners, however, had given several reminders to the Joint director, the Director, Forest Survey of India and appealed to the concerned minister, Ministry of Environment and Forest and a last reminder to the Joint director, Forest Department, who had (has) his office at the tenanted premises, before initiation of the present writ proceeding for enhancement of rent of the tenanted premises and those letters are mentioned in Paragraph-17 of the writ petition. The respondents in spite of receipt of the said letters did practically nothing except writing certain letters from their end. ( 18 ) ON the above basis, it was sought to be argued by the learned senior Counsel, Mr. Mullick on behalf of the petitioners that from the letters exchanged between the petitioners and the officials of the respondents and other relevant documents one thing was clear that the petitioners relying on the repeated promises of the department concerned, namely the Forest department, changed their position and since the principles of promissory estoppel could now be used as the basis of a "cause of action" and not only as a "defence" to a "claim", the Forest Department or rather the concerned respondents should be held to be estopped from denying the petitioners' right to receive enhanced rent as fixed by the Government Bodies who were (are)empowered to determine the question of enhancement of rent especially when such determination was not questioned and could be questioned by the respondents concerned. ( 19 ) FROM the chain of events that had taken place since the commencement of the tenancy or at least since the date when the late father of the petitioners wrote to the Joint Director, Forest Department, for enhancement of rent of the tenanted premises, submitted Mr. ( 19 ) FROM the chain of events that had taken place since the commencement of the tenancy or at least since the date when the late father of the petitioners wrote to the Joint Director, Forest Department, for enhancement of rent of the tenanted premises, submitted Mr. Mullick, on behalf of the petitioners, till the initiation of the writ proceeding or even thereafter, it was established that the tenant being the Forest Department of the Government of India throughout moved with one goal and that was to frustrate the legitimate claim or claims of the petitioners for enhancement of rent or at the least to avoid the payment of enhanced rent on the basis of the determination of the rate of enhanced rent (by such authority who under the law was (is) the competent authority to determine such rent) as long as they could. ( 20 ) IN support of his above contention Mr. Mullick, in fact, relied on several decisions where the Supreme Court as well as this Court dealt with the principles of "promissory estoppel" including the decision in Union of India and Ors. v. Poddar Udyog Limited and Anr. , reported in 2002 Cal LT 193 (HC)I do not think that there is any dispute with regard to the principles as laid down in the cases cited or rather relied on by Mr. Mullick including the Poddar udyog Limited (supra ). The principles of promissory estoppel are by now so well established and since the cases of the Supreme Court and of this Court were mentioned and dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in Poddar udyog Limited (supra), I do not think that those cases or the principles discussed therein need again be dealt with by me in any detail. ( 21 ) SUFFICE it to say that once it is shown by a person, the promisee, that a promise was made to him, by another person, the promisor, and such promise was not acted upon by the promisor, then such failure on the part of the promisor concerned to keep his promise can give rise to a good "cause of action" in favour of the promisee. In order to maintain such cause of action against the promisor, all the promisee has to show that he acted upon such promise or the representation made to him. In order to maintain such cause of action against the promisor, all the promisee has to show that he acted upon such promise or the representation made to him. ( 22 ) IN other words, suffice it to show for the promisee asserting the estoppel that he relied upon the representation or promise of the promisor on which the cause of action of the promisee is based. ( 23 ) IF the promisee succeeds in showing that he acted upon the promise or assurance or the representation made by the promisor to him and on the basis of such promise he changed or altered his position by relying on the promise or the representation of the promisor, then the cause of action of the promisee on the principles of "promissory estoppel" is perfectly maintainable. The promisee does not also have to show or prove further any damage, detriment or prejudice to him in support of his cause of action based on the principles of promissory estoppel. ( 24 ) IF the promisee succeeds in showing that he altered his position relying on the promise or assurance or the representation made by the promisee in his favour, then the Court would compel the promisor to keep the promise or to adhere to the assurance or representation or to act on the basis thereof. ( 25 ) IN support of the above, I cannot help relying on the observations of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, where his Lordship Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji speaking for the Division Bench said : - "it is true, that in the formative period, it was generally said that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked by the promisee unless he has suffered 'detriment' or 'prejudice'. It was often said simply, that the party asserting the estoppel must have been induced to act to his detriment. But, this has now been explained in so many decisions all over. All that is now required is that the party asserting the estoppel must have acted upon the assurance given to him. Must have relied upon the representation made to him. It means, the party has changed or altered the position by relying on the assurance or the representation. The alteration of position by the party is the only indispensable requirement of the doctrine. Must have relied upon the representation made to him. It means, the party has changed or altered the position by relying on the assurance or the representation. The alteration of position by the party is the only indispensable requirement of the doctrine. It is not necessary to prove further any damage, detriment or prejudice to the party asserting the estoppel. The court, however, would compel the opposite party to adhere to the representation acted upon or abstained from acting. The entire doctrine proceeds on the premise that it is reliance based and nothing more". "the concept of detriment as we now understand is whether it appears unjust, unreasonable or inequitable that the promisor should be allowed to resile from his assurance or representation, having regard to what the promisee has done or refrained from doing in reliance on the assurance or representation", (see Paragraphs-18 and 24 of the report, at pages 2419, 2420) ( 26 ) NEEDLESS to mention that in order to invoke the writ jurisdiction and maintain a writ proceeding on the principles of promissory estoppel, the promisee has to show that the promisor is a Government or a Government authority or a Statutory Authority or an Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. ( 27 ) IN the present case, as I have said before, the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners relied on the letters and the documents of the tenant concerned including the said certificates and especially on the contents of the said letter dated 3. 4. 2000 in support of the case that the concerned respondent or respondents being the Government or rather the Government Department were in complete breach of its promise or promises or representations made by it to the petitioners on the enhancement of rent of the tenanted premises and the respondents were not able to show, according to Mr. Mullick, either in the Affidavit-in-Opposition used by the respondents to the writ petition or by any other acceptable means that the concerned respondent or respondents were not obliged to enhance the rent as sought for by the petitioners and as determined by the authority namely the "hiring Committee" and on that basis a case of promissory estoppel was perfectly maintainable against the concerned respondents and the case of the petitioners should succeed as such. ( 28 ) LASTLY, Mr. ( 28 ) LASTLY, Mr. Mullick relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this court in Regional Director, E. R. , A. M. D. Department of Atomic Energy and ors. v. Rabindra Nath Nandi and Anr. and submitted that the Division Bench in that case was practically dealing with identical or very similar issue or issues with which I am concerned in the present proceeding and as such the claim of the petitioners for enhancement of rent of the tenanted premises should at least succeed on the basis of the above decision of the Division Bench. ( 29 ) HOWEVER, it appears that both the learned Judges of the Division bench in Rabindra Nath Nandi (supra) could not quite agree with one another, at least in respect of the finaldirections which the learned Judges thought that they should make in disposing of the appeal. Although, both the learned Judges thought that the appeal should be allowed but there was disagreement between them in allowing the cross-objection preferred by the writ petitioners. Her ladyship Justice Ruma Pal was of the opinion that both the appeal and the cross-objection should be allowed and the order under appeal should be set aside and both the appeal and the cross-objection were to be disposed of with certain directions, whereas, the other learned Judge, namely Justice D. K. Jain thought though the appeal should be allowed and the order in appeal should be set aside but the cross-objection should not be allowed and as such both the learned Judges while setting aside the order under appeal disposed of the appeal by giving their respective directions, which, as aforesaid were not on identical terms. As there was difference of opinion, a reference was made to a learned Single Judge for his opinion on the question which arose by virtue of such difference of opinion between the learned Judges of the Division Bench. ( 30 ) THE learned Single Judge found that the "hiring Committee" in that case recommended revisions of rent in respect of the tenanted premises for certain periods and the recommendations were made by it as per market rate on the basis of recognised principles of valuation and having taken into account the Municipal taxes as payable, maintenance of the tenanted premises which were to be borne by the landlord etc. The final decision on the basis of the said recommendations for enhancement of rent was, however, to be made or taken by the concerned "hiring Authority". The landlord of the tenanted premises then applied for a direction on the appellants to make payment of the amounts of rent as assessed by the "hiring Committee". The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge whereby the "hiring Authority" was directed to act in terms of the recommendations made by the Hiring Committee for enhancement of rent. There was no direction, however, for payment of interest on the rent in arrears by the learned Single Judge. The "hiring authority", thereafter, preferred an appeal against the said order of the learned single Judge and the landlord or the landlords preferred a cross-appeal by which they claimed interest on the rent in arrears and appeals and the cross-appeals were heard by the Division Bench, as aforesaid. ( 31 ) AFTER considering the entire case and essentially the question referred to the learned Single Judge, namely Justice Gitesh Ranjan bhattacharjee, his Lordship agreed with the view taken by Justice Ruma Pal and the directions made by her Ladyship in the above appeal in respect of which the above reference was made to the learned Judge. In other words, the learned Single Judge agreed with the reliefs granted by Justice Ruma Pal including payment of interest on the rent in arrears, Justice Bhattacharjee also agreed with Justice Ruma Pal that the cross-objection preferred by the landlords should also be allowed. On the basis of the answer given by the learned Single Judge on reference, the said appeal was again placed before the Division Bench of Justice Ruma Pal and Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya (as Justice D. K. Jain was not available then, as his Lordship left this Court) for the disposal of appeal and the cross-appeal on the basis of the opinion of learned Single Judge on reference. ( 32 ) AS the order passed by the Division Bench on 24th December, 1998 disposing of the said appeal and the cross-appeal on merits has, in my opinion, the most material bearing upon the merits of the present writ petition, the said order dated 24th December, 1998 is set-out below: - "regional Director, ER, AMD, department of Atomic Energy and Ors. Versus rabindra Nath Nandi and Anr. Versus rabindra Nath Nandi and Anr. Dictated Order the Court: In view of the concurring judgment of the third Judge to whom the reference had been made upon the difference of opinion between the Judges constituting the Appeal Court, the matters are disposed of in terms of the majority view. The appeal and cross-objection are allowed. The order under appeal is set aside with the following directions: - (1) The Hiring Committee must make available to the parties the details of all calculations made with regard to the assessment of rents within four weeks from date; (2) Any objections to such calculations by either party must be specific and made within four weeks thereafter; (3) Within the same period any relevant evidence as to the market rate for the periods in question with full particulars may be submitted by either party to the Hiring Committee with copies to the other side; (4) The Hiring Committee will then reconsider the matter in the light of the observations in this judgment and take a decision on the materials before it after verification within a period of three months thereafter; (5) The recommendations along with all the calculations in support thereof will be communicated to both parties within 48 hours thereof; (6) The department shall take a decision on the recommendation in the light of the observations contained in this judgment within four weeks thereafter. Such decision is to be taken by the Regional Director, atomic Minerals Division, Department of Atomic Energy, If the recommendation is not accepted detailed reasons for such non-acceptance must be given and communicated to the appeirants (respondents ') within 48 hours thereof; (7) If the recommendation is accepted payments of all outstandings on account of re-assessed rents must be made to the landlords within four weeks from the date of the decision together with interest at the rate of 8 1/3 per cent simple interest per annum calculated from the date on which the payments were due up to the date of payment; (8) There will be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of the dictated order on the usual undertaking. Ruma Pal bhaskar Bhattacharya. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of the dictated order on the usual undertaking. Ruma Pal bhaskar Bhattacharya. " (both the original decision of the Appeal Court and the decision of the learned Single Judge and the above subsequent directions of the Appeal Court dated 24th December, 2004 are, as far as I am concerned, unreported ). ( 33 ) I have had the advantage of considering the above opinion of his lordship Justice Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee on reference and the directions of the Division Bench by which the above appeal and the cross-objection were disposed of. After having considered the said opinion and the said directions, I am also of the opinion that the present writ petition should also be decided and disposed of on the basis of the directions of the Appeal Court dated 24th December, 1998 and in so doing I do not think it necessary on my part to decide at this stage as to whether the respondent or respondents concerned should be directed to pay the enhanced rent on the basis of determination of enhanced rates of rent by the Hiring Committee as contained in the said rent certificates of the Hiring Committee. It is, however, clear that the concerned respondent or respondents have a duty to consider what should the rate or rather the rates of enhanced rent be and such consideration or considerations should be made on the basis of the recommendation or recommendations of the said "hiring Committee" and taking into account the "rent certificates" issued by the said committee and the said letter of the Joint director, Forest Department, dated 3rd April, 2000. ( 34 ) HOWEVER, before I pass the order and directions in the writ proceeding, it is necessary to mention the stand taken by the respondents in their affidavit used by them in opposition to the writ petition. I must frankly confess that having read the entire Affidavit-in-Opposition, I have not been able to appreciate as to what stand or stands the concerned respondents have tried to take in support of their defence to the claim or claims made by the writ petitioners, in support of the enhancement of rent of the tenanted premises. I must frankly confess that having read the entire Affidavit-in-Opposition, I have not been able to appreciate as to what stand or stands the concerned respondents have tried to take in support of their defence to the claim or claims made by the writ petitioners, in support of the enhancement of rent of the tenanted premises. Apart from denying that it was a case of promissory estoppel or that the respondents were obliged to enhance the rent on the basis of the rent certificates or on the basis of the letter of the Joint Director dated 3rd April, 2000 or at all, the entire Affidavit-in-Opposition practically says nothing apart from annexing certain letters. The respondents, it seems, have tried to spell out a case that since the landlords/owners of the tenanted premises did not enter into a formal "lease Agreement", the enhancement of rent was not possible or, in other words, since there have not been any formal Lease agreement by and between the parties, the respondents have not been able to enhance the rate or rates of rent of the tenanted premises for all these years. It is very difficult to appreciate the stand taken by the respondents in their Affidavit-in-Opposition, the respondents are no douot very mighty, the writ petitioners being the landlords of the tenanted premises had and have always been at the receiving end, the writ petitioners, in my opinion, have, so far, done all things necessary which were (are) to be done by the petitioners to enable the concerned respondent or respondents to come to a final decision as to the enhancement of rent. All the necessary documents, papers, materials were and are on record and the concerned respondent or respondents could and can always take a decision on the question of enhancement of rent of the tenanted premises in question but the respondent or respondents, in my considered opinion, have, so far, avoided to do the same on some pretext or the other. ( 35 ) MR. Roy Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents from time to time at the hearing tried to suggest that there was no obligation on the part of the respondents to enhance the rent of the tenanted premises. He also said that the rent certificates issued by the Hiring committee "do not bind the respondents" in the first place. He also said that the rent certificates issued by the Hiring committee "do not bind the respondents" in the first place. He also said that there was nothing to show that any promise on enhancement of rent was made to the petitioners by the respondents, let alone any breach of such promise on their part. Needless to mention that he also said, if I understood him correctly, that there was no question of enhancement of rent since there was no formal agreement of lease by and between the parties, namely the petitioners and the tenant (the Forest Department ). ( 36 ) AFTER having considered the stand taken by the respondents and the submissions on their behalf, I cannot help saying that the respondents, at the least should have tried to spell out some acceptable and intelligible case or stand in their Affidavit-in-Opposition apart from saying that the "hiring committee" determined the rate or rates of rent ex-parte and without any notice to the respondents. I must say that the respondents have utterly failed to take an acceptable and reasonable stand in meeting the case of the petitioners. ( 37 ) THE position of the Forest Department being the tenant cannot, in my opinion, be equated with the status of an "ordinary tenant", in the first place. The tenant in the present case being a department of Government had and has a duty to take a reasonable stand and a rational approach in the matter even though the relationship between the Forest Department, the tenant and the petitioners, the landlords, has always been and is essentially a contractual one. ( 38 ) HOWEVER, having considered the merits of the writ petition and the documents on record, the particulars of which I have mentioned more than once hereinabove, I am minded to decide the writ petition on the basis of the directions as contained in the said order of the Appeal Court dated 24th december, 1998 in Mr. Rabindra Nath Nandi (supra) though, in my opinion, the facts and circumstances of the present case are much stronger than the case with which the Appeal Court was concerned in Rabindra Nath Nandi. Rabindra Nath Nandi (supra) though, in my opinion, the facts and circumstances of the present case are much stronger than the case with which the Appeal Court was concerned in Rabindra Nath Nandi. ( 39 ) THUS, the following directions are made: - (i) The Hiring Committee is directed to make available to the parties the details of all the calculations made by it with regard to the assessment/enhancement of rent as mentioned in their different rent certificates ranging from 29th December, 1983 till 16th March, 2004 within a period of five weeks from date; (ii) If either party seeks to raise any objection to such calculations it may do so but in that case specific objections must be made or raised in writing within four weeks thereafter; (iii) Relevant evidence, if any, as to the market rate of "rent" for the periods in question, if any, should be submitted with full particulars by either party to the Hiring Committee with copies to the other side within the above period of 4 weeks; (iv) The Hiring Committee shall then take a decision or reconsider the matter, as the case may be, taking into account the judgment pronounced herein, the facts and circumstances of the case or rather the relevant materials before it within a period of two months thereafter; (v) The recommendation or recommendations, if any, along with the calculations in support of such recommendations shall be communicated to both the parties within a period of three days from the date of such reconsideration or the decision; (vi) The department concerned shall then take a decision on the recommendation or recommendations taking into account this judgment within four weeks from the date of receipt of the result of the above reconsideration or the decision, as the case may be, of the "hiring committee"; (vii) Such decision is to be taken by the Regional Director, government of India, Survey of India, Eastern Zone, the fourth respondent herein. If the recommendation or recommendations of the hiring Committee are not accepted reasons in detail for such non-acceptance shall be given and communicated to the writ petitioners within 48 hours of such non-acceptance; (viii) If the recommendation or recommendations are accepted payments of all outstandings on account of re-assessed rents (or rather the rent in arrears) shall be made to the landlords/petitioners within four weeks from the date of the decision of such acceptance together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent simple interest per annum calculated from the date or dates on which the (respective) payments were due up to the date of payments. ( 40 ) THE above directions are to be treated to be mandatory by the parties. ( 41 ) THE writ petition is, thus, disposed of in terms of the above order. There will be no order as to costs.