Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 314 (JK)

Hotel Tramboo Continental v. State Of J&K

2008-07-30

K.S.Radhakrishnan, MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2008
Per K.S. Radhakrishnan, CJ. 1. Petitioner seeks review of orders of the Division Bench in LPA dated May 26, 2004 and July 20, 2004 in terms of orders of the Supreme Court dated August 29, 2005 passed in SLP (Civil) no(s). 18453-18455/2004. 2. Review petitioner had raised a contention before the Supreme Court that there was no agreement between the parties for fixing the rate of rent. Raising the contention, he withdrew the SLP and sought to file a clarification / review petition before this Court. The SLP was, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. Now, the review-petitioner has taken the stand that there was no agreement between the parties fixing rate of rent for the hotel building in question and, therefore, the respondents ought to have paid rent as at the rate fixed by the Rent Assessment Committee. 3. The respondents have made available the records/files and we have perused the same. We notice that rent deed dated June 22, 2001 was executed between the petitioner and IGP, Security, J&K Police Department. Clause 4 of the rent deed is relevant which is extracted hereunder: "Whereas the party no.1 (owner) have lent out the said hotel comprising of above mentioned accommodation at para 3 on hire/rates approved by the Government vide order no.141-EST of 1999 dated 17.5.1999 and would also be liable to any type of changes in rate from time to time by the Govt." 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also made available the Government Order dated May 17, 1999 which clearly indicates that room rent of Rs.90 was enhanced to Rs.100. Accordingly, as per the rent deed, the said amount has been paid to the review petitioner. In our view, petitioner is entitled to the rent as fixed in the rent deed read with Government order dated May 17, 1999. Learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that the hotel building was taken possession of by the Estates Department somewhere in June 1997 and there was no agreement between the parties prior to execution of rent deed dated June 22, 2001. Consequently, the respondents are bound to pay rent on the rate fixed by the Rent Assessment Committee. It is difficult to accept that contention. Consequently, the respondents are bound to pay rent on the rate fixed by the Rent Assessment Committee. It is difficult to accept that contention. If the petitioner was agreeable to fixation of rent at Rs.100 per room in terms of the rent deed read with Government order dated May 17, 1999 in the year 2001, how can he claim enhancement of rent to Rs.200 per room prior to the year 2001. Above being the factual position, we find no error in the view taken by the Division Bench, warranting calling for review of clarification. 5. Review petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.