Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2204 (RAJ)

Manohar Lal v. State

2018-11-16

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Manohar Lal with the following prayers:- "i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 14.2.2014 (Annex-9) passed by the learned District and Session Judge, Chittorgarh in appeal No.53/2013 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 7.11.2013 (Annex-7) passed by the Estate Officer cum Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh in case No.4.2013 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the application moved by Vikas Adhikari for evicting the petitioner and terminating his tenancy with regard to his shop allotted to him in the year 1990 may kindly be rejected and the respondents be directed to continue the tenancy of the petitioner as per terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 26.4.1989 and rule as inforce at that time. iv) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to restore the possession of the petitioner which has illegally been seized on 14.2.2014. v) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 issued to the petitioner may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside." 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner claims to have been allotted a shop No.6 at the Indra Market, Chittorgarh pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.4.1989 issued by the Panchayat Samiti, Chittorgarh. The possession of the shop was allegedly handed over to the petitioner on 2.7.1990. An agreement was also executed between the petitioner and the Panchayat Samiti wherein the base rent was kept at Rs. 500/- per month and with an increase of 20% every three years. The petitioner claims to have made improvements in the shop during this period of 15 years and converted the stone slab roof to RCC. The petitioner further claims that he did not violate any of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement or the agreement. The repairs etc. were carried out after duly bringing the same to the notice of the Panchayat Samiti. The petitioner further claims that he did not violate any of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement or the agreement. The repairs etc. were carried out after duly bringing the same to the notice of the Panchayat Samiti. In the year 2012, after issuing a notice dated 18.6.2012, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad proceeded to pass an order dated 3.7.2012 requiring the petitioner to execute a new agreement with the Panchayati Samiti as per Rule 164 of the Rajasthan Rules of 1996. The petitioner claiming the order to be illegal, refused to execute the fresh agreement whereupon, the CEO directed that the allotment of shop made to the petitioner on rental basis stood cancelled and the possession thereof be resumed by the Panchayat Samiti. The petitioner claims that identical orders were passed against 10 other shopkeepers of the same locality. These shopkeepers as well as the petitioner challenged the order dated 3.7.2012 by preferring Writ Petition No.7480/2012 before this Court for assailing the order passed by the Panchayat Samiti on the ground that Rule 164 of the Rules of 1996 could not be made applicable to the allotments of shop made in the year 1990. The petitioner's case (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7480/2012) was decided by this court vide order dated 21.09.2012 in light of the order dated 18.09.2012 passed by this Court in the identical Writ Petition No.7097/2012 "Kailash Chandra & Ors. v. State & Ors.". While dealing with the applicability of Rule 164 of the Rules of 1996, this Court declared the order dated 3.7.2012 passed by the Chief Executive Officer to be without jurisdiction and unsustainable in the eye of law. The respondents were directed to restore the petitioner's possession. However, the Panchayat Samiti was given liberty to terminate the tenancy in accordance with law. The appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the said judgment was withdrawn. Pursuant to the judgment rendered by the High Court, the Panchayat Samiti filed an application before the Estate Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Chittorgarh for initiating action against the petitioner treating him to be an unauthorised occupant. Application was decided by order dated 22.2.2013 which was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Appeal No.22/2013 in the court of the learned District Judge, Chittorgarh. The said appeal was accepted. Application was decided by order dated 22.2.2013 which was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Appeal No.22/2013 in the court of the learned District Judge, Chittorgarh. The said appeal was accepted. The order passed by the Estate Officer was struck down holding that the notice of eviction was not compliant with the requirement of Section 106 of the Tenancy Act and the proceedings of eviction initiated by the Panchayat Samiti against the petitioner were declared to be vitiated. The Panchayat Samiti, initiated fresh proceedings under Section 106 of the Tenancy Act for eviction of the petitioner to which, the petitioner gave a detailed reply. The petitioner claims to have handed over cheques for the rent due but the respondents allegedly did not encash the same. Fresh application was filed by the respondents under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1964 for short) before the Estate Officer, who vide order dated 7.11.2013 allowed the same, holding that the petitioner had violated the conditions of the original allotment letter by making modifications in the basic structure of the shop and that he had failed to comply with the requirements of the mandatory 30 days' notice issued to him under the Transfer of Property Act and hence, he was liable to be evicted from the shop in question. The petitioner assailed the order passed by the Estate Officer by filing a Civil Appeal No.53/2013 before the District Judge, Chittorgarh who rejected the same by judgment dated 14.2.2014. The order dated 7.11.2013 passed by the Estate Officer and the judgment dated 14.2.2014 passed by the District Judge, Chittorgarh are assailed in this writ petition on numerous amongst other grounds. 3. The respondents have filed detailed reply to the writ petition alleging inter-alia that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the original allotment letter by making material alterations in the shop and that he did not comply with the notice issued to him under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is also submitted that the premises in question are public premises. The petitioner has failed to deposit the due rent thereof. The legality and validity of the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act issued to the petitioner on 8.8.2013 has not been challenged by him in the writ petition. It is also submitted that the premises in question are public premises. The petitioner has failed to deposit the due rent thereof. The legality and validity of the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act issued to the petitioner on 8.8.2013 has not been challenged by him in the writ petition. The respondents have further contended that admittedly, the original period of tenancy of the petitioner was upto 31.7.1996, and thereafter, no fresh rent agreement was ever executed by the petitioner. The petitioner was given an option to execute fresh rent deed in accordance with Rule 164 of the Rules of 1996 but he failed to do so. Thereafter, the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued to the petitioner on 8.8.2013. Upon the petitioner failing to comply with the requirements of notice, the proceedings were initiated before the Estate Officer by filing an application under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Act of 1964. The Estate Officer considered the entire factual gamut and directed eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question by a reasoned order dated 7.11.2013 which has also been affirmed in appeal. On these premises and contending that the orders under challenge are perfectly just and legal, the respondents have sought dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the reply controverting the contents of the reply and reiterating the averments made in the writ petition. 5. Shri Sunil Joshi learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that the applicability of the Rule 164 of the Rules of 1996 to the controversy at hand is no longer res-intega in view of the findings recorded by the court in the order dated 18.9.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.7097/2012. He contended that the petitioner has not made any material change in the premises. He has been regularly paying rent to the Panchayat Samiti and thus, there exists no ground so as to direct ouster of the petitioner from the shop in question. 6. Per contra, Shri S.S.Ladrecha, learned A.A.G. representing the respondents vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He has been regularly paying rent to the Panchayat Samiti and thus, there exists no ground so as to direct ouster of the petitioner from the shop in question. 6. Per contra, Shri S.S.Ladrecha, learned A.A.G. representing the respondents vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He drew the attention of the Court to the concluding observations in the order dated 21.9.2012 passed by this Court in the petitioner's earlier Writ Petition No.7480/2012 wherein the Panchayat Samiti was given liberty to seek eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question after following due process of law. He contended that the original tenancy period was valid only for a period of six years, which ended on 31.7.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner's capacity became that of a tenant holding over. The rent deed was never renewed. With the coming into force of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner was given an option to get a fresh rent deed executed under these provisions but he failed to avail of such opportunity. Thereafter, the notice for eviction was issued to the petitioner under Section 106 of the Tenancy Act on numerous grounds viz. culmination of the period of tenancy, the material changes made by him in the rented premises etc. The petitioner failed to offer any justifiable explanation to the notice where after, the Estate Officer directed the petitioner's eviction from the premises. In furtherance thereof, the Panchayat Samiti has resumed possession of the shop in question from the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the Estate Officer's order has been dismissed by the civil court by assigning cogent factual findings wherein, this Court while exercising its supervisory writ jurisdiction is not required to interfere. He thus craved dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 8. It is an undisputed position as emanating from the record that the original period of tenancy between the petitioner and the Panchayat Samiti for the shop in question was for a period of six years which came to an end on 31.7.1996. Thereafter, the tenancy agreement was never continued or extended. Accordingly, no sooner the period of tenancy came to an end, the petitioner assumed the character of a tenant holding over possession on the premise. Thereafter, the tenancy agreement was never continued or extended. Accordingly, no sooner the period of tenancy came to an end, the petitioner assumed the character of a tenant holding over possession on the premise. The respondents offered numerous opportunities to the petitioner for renewal of the tenancy. However, the petitioner failed to avail of such opportunity. Thereafter, the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Tenancy Act. The notice dated 8.8.2013 whereby the respondents terminated the tenancy of the petitioner has not been placed on record nor the validity thereof is questioned by express pleadings of the writ petition. The application filed by the Panchayat Samiti before the Estate Officer under the provisions of the Act of 1964 was allowed by assigning substantial reasons vide order dated 7.11.2013. Significant it is to note that it is the specific plea of the respondents that the original tenancy was operating uptill 31.7.1996 only but the petitioner has conveniently failed to place on record the rent deed executed between him and the Panchayat Samiti. This fact not being disputed, it is to be assumed that after 31.7.1996, the petitioner's tenancy was never continued and he continued in possession of the shop in question as a tenant holding over. No sooner mandatory period of 30 days' notice issued to the petitioner under Section 106 of the Tenancy Act came to an end, he became an unauthorised occupant of the premises in question and was rightly evicted therefrom in terms of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act of 1964. 9. Considered in light of the discussion made hereinabove, this court is of the firm opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity whatsoever warranting interference therein in exercise of the supervisory/extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Hence, the writ petition as well as stay application are rejected as being devoid of merit.