Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 291 (ORI)

K. Damayanti Senapati v. Union of India

2017-03-17

A.K.RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : DR. A.K.RATH, J. 1. This is plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.12.2009 and 7.1.2010 respectively passed the learned Addl. District Judge, Rourkela in R.F.A No.10 of 2007 confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2006 and 4.8.2006 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panposh in C.S. No.65 of 2004 in a suit for declaration that the order passed by the General Manager, S.E. Railway/GRC dated 9.5.2001 for enhancement of rent from Rs.396/-to Rs.32,933/-in respect of Shop No.2 situated at Railway Market Complex, Diesel Colony, Bondamunda and the notice issued by the Senior Sectional Engineer (Works), S.E Railway, Bondamunda dated 7.7.2003 for eviction of the plaintiff is arbitrary and liable to be withdrawn. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a tenant under the defendants. In the year 1986, he was allotted suit shop no.2 Railway Market Complex, Diesel Colony, Bondamunda. There was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2. The rent was fixed at Rs.396/-per annum payable on the 1st January of each year. The plaintiff took possession of the suit shop and was paying licence fee regularly till 2001 without any interruption. While the matter stood thus, the defendants served a notice on him and other shop owners enhancing rent from Rs.396/-to Rs.32,933/-@ Rs.1492/-per square meter with effect from 1.4.2001. On 4.6.2002, a notice was issued by the defendant no.4 to the plaintiff to pay the enhanced rent of the suit shop within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. On receipt of such notice, the shop owners made several representations to the defendants but the defendants maintained a sphinx like silence. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that the shop was allotted to the plaintiff. As per the decision of the Railway Board, the rent was enhanced. No representation was received from the plaintiff relating to the enhancement of rent. It is further stated that there has been no violation of the principle of natural justice. There was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants. As per the agreement, the rent was enhanced from time to time. But then, the plaintiff never paid rent regularly and defaulted in paying the same as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. There was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants. As per the agreement, the rent was enhanced from time to time. But then, the plaintiff never paid rent regularly and defaulted in paying the same as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Since no notice has been served under Section 80 CPC, the suit is not maintainable. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined one witness and on his behalf, seven documents had been exhibited. The defendants had examined one witness and on their behalf, one document had been exhibited. The learned trial court came to hold that enhance of rent by the defendants does not violate any of the provisions between the parties. Held so, learned trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree before the learned Addl. District Judge, Rourkela in RFA No.10 of 2007, which was eventually dismissed. 5. Heard Mr. Yeeshan Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Avijit Pal, learned advocate for the respondents. 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, argued with vehemence that enhancement of rent to Rs.32,933/-is illegal and arbitrary. Before enhancement of rent, no notice was issued to the tenant. The clause of the agreement is unconscionable. In view of the same, both the courts below fell into patent error in dismissing the suit. 7. Per contra, Mr. Pal, learned advocate for the respondents, submitted that the plaintiff is a tenant under the defendants. He is in occupation of a portion of the Railway land. An agreement was entered into between the parties. He is a licencee. Referring to clause-2 of the licence, which was produced in course of hearing, he submitted that the licence fee was fixed at Rs.396/-per annum, which was payable from 1st January of each year. The agreement provides that annual licence fee shall be subject to revision from time to time by the Railway Administration as may be determined by it during the subsistence of the agreement and the amount of the licence fee so determined by the administration on such revision shall be paid by the licensee. 8. The agreement provides that annual licence fee shall be subject to revision from time to time by the Railway Administration as may be determined by it during the subsistence of the agreement and the amount of the licence fee so determined by the administration on such revision shall be paid by the licensee. 8. The apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and others v. Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited and another, AIR 1985 SC 1293 , held that it is a well-settled rule of interpretation that a document must be construed as a whole. It was further held that just as a document cannot be interpreted by picking out only a few clauses ignoring the other relevant ones, in the same way the nature and meaning of a document cannot be determined by its end-result or one of the results or consequences which flow from it. The nomenclature and description given to a contract is not determinative of the real nature of the document or of the transaction. 9. On the anvil of the decision cited supra, the instant case may be examined. 10. Clause-2 of the licence provides that the licensee shall pay to the Administration a sum of Rs.396/-per annum by way of licence fee. The first of such payments shall be paid by the licensee on the signing of the agreement and subsequent payments shall be made in advance on the 1st day of January, in each year during the continuance of the agreement. It further provides that the annual licence fee shall be subject to revision from time to time by the Administration as determined by the Administration during subsistence of the agreement. The amount of the licence fee so determined by the Administration on such revision shall be paid by the licensee. The revision of such licence fee shall become effective from the date the revised licence fee has been brought into force notwithstanding that the licensee is informed of such revised licence fee after the date from which such revised licence fee is brought into force. The licensee shall also on demand pay to the Administration such costs and charges as the Administration may incur for the purpose of getting the valuation of the said premises determined for the time being by the State Revenue Authorities for the purpose of revision of the licence fee. The licensee shall also on demand pay to the Administration such costs and charges as the Administration may incur for the purpose of getting the valuation of the said premises determined for the time being by the State Revenue Authorities for the purpose of revision of the licence fee. The licensee shall pay on demand to the Administration such costs and charges. The term of the agreement is unambiguous and clear. 11. The inescapable conclusion is that the action of the licensor to enhance the licence fee does not require any prior notice to the licensee. With eyes open licensee had entered into the agreement with the licensor. In the result, the appeal, devoid of any merit, is dismissed, since the same does not involve any substantial question of law. No costs.