Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 340 (PNJ)

Raj Kumar Baliyan v. State of Haryana

2013-03-12

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

body2013
Rajiv Narain Raina, J.— The petitioner is the owner of a building in Malviya Nagar, Sonepat which was let out to Government to accommodate the Office of the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sonepat, Haryana. Both the parties entered into an agreement dated 24.8.2006 (P-1) fixing the period of tenancy from 1.7.2006 to 30.6.2011. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of Clause 3 of the agreement, the Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Sonepat assessed the monthly rent of the building let out at Rs.7344/- per month. On expiry of the lease, the building was not vacated and a fresh agreement dated 15.11.2011 was entered between the parties. In this manner, the fresh tenancy was to run for another five years from 1.2.2011 till 30.1.2016. It transpires that in pursuance of Haryana Government Circular letter dated 22.1.2010; the area Executive Engineer carried out an assessment exercise and recommended revision of rates of rent to Rs.22474/- per month. This figure was incorporated in the lease agreement dated 15.11.2011. It is not disputed that the 3rd respondent- Deputy Director, Agriculture vacated the premises on 30.4.2012 and handed over vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner landlord. The petitioner's claim in this petition is restricted to recovery of enhanced rent for a period of six months i.e. from 15.11.2011 when the rent was recommended for enhancement to 30.4.2012 when the property was vacated and vacant possession handed over. Clause 3 of the 1st agreement dated 24.8.2006 contained the recital that the rent of the building shall be revised only after the expiry of five years from the date of start of tenancy and the revision of rent after expiry of the period, in any case, shall not exceed 25% of the original rent. It transpired that the Government of Haryana issued a circular dated 22.1.2010 (P-3) on the subject of assessment of rent of private buildings hired for Government offices in B Class Municipalities as Sonipat is, revising the then existing rate of rent of Rs.600/- per square yard to Rs.2400/- per square yard. The Circular contains Note 3 which is the operating provision which would govern the rights between the parties with reference to the prayer made for unpaid rent for six months of the period of the second agreement. The Circular contains Note 3 which is the operating provision which would govern the rights between the parties with reference to the prayer made for unpaid rent for six months of the period of the second agreement. It reads as follows:- “3.It is also made clear that assessment as per revised basis would be effective only from the date of issue of Govt. sanction and that no building would be reassessed before the expiry of the 5 years period or the expiry of the date of the period of written agreement.” Therefore, the revised rates could apply only from the date of issuance of Government sanction according to Note 3. Though the second agreement was for 5 years, the Government department vacated the premises within 6 months. The claim in this petition is for revised rent and a prayer has been made in the petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent-department to pay the rent at the enhanced rate of Rs.22,474/- per month in pursuance to the second agreement for the disputed period of 6 months prior to vacation of the premises. The claim is purely for recovery of money. On a pointed query from the Court, Mr. Vohra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner admitted that the agreement does not qualify as a lease deed on which registration fee has been paid because it was a document of which registration was compulsory under Section 17 (d) of the Registration Act, 1908 since it was for 5 years. The agreement is, therefore, per se inadmissible in evidence in an action brought in court and can only be used in evidence after registration charges stand paid to Government treasury. Not only this, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any order or conscious decision of the competent authority that the Government had duly sanctioned the agreement dated 15.11.2011 in question by an express order. In the absence of an order according sanction, the second agreement did not legally come into existence to govern the rights of the parties except as proof of tenancy and other collateral purposes, if any. I have heard Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana per contra. I have perused the written statement filed in response to the writ petition. I have heard Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana per contra. I have perused the written statement filed in response to the writ petition. The respondents have contested the claim on various grounds, including availability of alternative remedy under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for fixation of fair rent. This Court is of opinion that a pure claim for money based on nonpayment of enhanced rent for six months ought not to be permitted to be agitated in writ proceedings. The petitioner has alternative remedies available which are equally efficacious and the petitioner should be relegated to those remedies. Therefore, without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue alternative remedy either before the Civil Court, Rent Controller or even better at the administrative level in Government including a request to it for grant of ex post facto sanction. In the absence of sanction this Court can do little. The writ petition to stand dismissed with the liberty aforesaid. No costs.