Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 237 (GAU)

Tenants Association v. State of Nagaland

2022-03-07

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2022
JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the Office Order dated 22.03.2019, whereby the respondent No. 5 had increased the rent on the basis of a notification issued by the Government of Nagaland, Works and Housing Department vide Notification No. WH/BUD-22/2000(H)(Pt), dated 24.10.2016; the Office Order dated 12.07.2019, whereby the respondent No. 5 had revised the room rent from Rs. 9.50/- to Rs. 9.00/- per sq. ft. for ground floor and Rs. 7.60/- to Rs. 7.00/- per sq. ft. for 1st floor w.e.f. 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 as well as the exemption granted to the rent for the basement from GC-18 to GC-34 and GA-18 to GA-32 for a period of 4 (four) months, i.e. from June, 2019 to September, 2019; the Communication dated 13.08.2019 to the President of the petitioner association intimating about the Office Order dated 12.07.2017 and the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland, i.e. respondent No. 6 herein, to one of the members of the petitioner association, whereby the said member was directed to pay the said amount within 21.11.2019 and failing which, necessary proceedings will be initiated for eviction. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Office Order dated 22.03.2019, the petitioner does not wish to challenge the Office Order dated 12.07.2019, as well as the impugned letter dated 13.08.2019. 4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is an association of various tenants of Naga Shopping Arcade and it has been registered by the Government of Nagaland and have been given the registration No. 5015. The petitioner’s grievance in the instant writ petition is that the members of the petitioner association had entered into various agreements with the respondent No. 5, whereby various shops have been taken on lease from time to time. The petitioner’s grievance in the instant writ petition is that the members of the petitioner association had entered into various agreements with the respondent No. 5, whereby various shops have been taken on lease from time to time. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide the Office Order dated 22.03.2019, the rent has been arbitrarily and unreasonably increased by almost around 90-95% and as such, the said Office order needs to be interfered with in as much as the members of the petitioner association would be severely affected and the rights under the provisions of Article 14 and 21 would be affected. Other orders which have been impugned, i.e. the Order dated 12.07.2019, and the letter dated 13.08.2019, are consequential orders/letters on the basis of the Office Order dated 22.03.2019. 5. For the purpose of adjudication of the said aspect as to whether the increase which has been made vide the impugned Office Order dated 22.03.2019 is arbitrary and unreasonable, it may be relevant to take note of that the members of the petitioner association have entered into various lease agreements with the respondent No. 5. One of the such lease agreements have been enclosed as Annexure-C1 to the instant writ petition. Clause 13 of the said lease agreement stipulates the period of lease and that the said lease agreement is renewable at the option and discretion of the lessor, i.e. the respondent No. 5, subject to such increase of rent and terms and conditions that may be determined and fixed by the lessor, i.e. the respondent No. 5. The Clause 13 of the said lease agreement, which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits, is para materia in all lease agreements entered into with respondent No. 5 being relevant is quoted herein-below: “13. The period of this lease is fixed for 36 (thirty six) months with effect from the 1st day of December 2004, renewable at the option and discretion of the Lessor, subject to such increase of rent and on such terms and conditions that may be determined and fixed by the Lessor. Whenever the Lessee is desirous of renewing the lease period, the lessee shall give notice in writing to the Lessor at lease 3 (three) months before the expiry of the lease. However, it will be the option of the Lessor to grant further renewal or not. Whenever the Lessee is desirous of renewing the lease period, the lessee shall give notice in writing to the Lessor at lease 3 (three) months before the expiry of the lease. However, it will be the option of the Lessor to grant further renewal or not. If further renewal is not granted, the Lessee shall be obliged to vacate the demised premises immediately upon the completion of the lease period.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that w.e.f. October 2015, the lease rent were increased as could be seen from Annexure-C4 to the writ petition. Thereafter, all of a sudden, in the year 2019, the said lease rent was increased by the Office Order dated 22.03.2019 by almost 90-95%. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the said lease rent, which has been increased in the year 2019 was on the basis of a notification of the Government of Nagaland of the year 2016. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that this increase which ought to have been made in the year 2016 has been affected in the year 2019 and as such, the question of the same being unreasonable or exorbitant does not arise. She submits that in fact, the lease rent ought to have been much higher than what has been mentioned in the impugned order dated March, 2019. She further submits that in view of this particular Notification dated 04.10.2016 (Annexure-G to the writ petition), the respondent No. 5, which is an autonomous body of the Government of Nagaland is bound not to permit rental at a lesser rate than what has been mentioned in the notification and as such, the respondent No. 5 Board had adopted the Government notification in its meeting held on 08.02.2019. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given my anxious consideration to the matter. 9. A perusal of the Notification dated 24.10.2016 stipulates that the Governor of Nagaland has revised the existing hiring rates general/commercial and rental housing/government buildings as per the details mentioned therein. The said notification was adopted by the respondent No. 5 in its 67th meeting held on 08.02.2019. 9. A perusal of the Notification dated 24.10.2016 stipulates that the Governor of Nagaland has revised the existing hiring rates general/commercial and rental housing/government buildings as per the details mentioned therein. The said notification was adopted by the respondent No. 5 in its 67th meeting held on 08.02.2019. On the basis thereof, the Office Order dated 22.03.2019 was passed, whereby all the members of the petitioner association were directed to renew the rent agreement and make payment as per the revised rate, w.e.f. April, 2019. It further appears from the record that some of the members of the petitioner association had paid the rents in terms with the revised rates, although have not entered into a fresh lease agreement, whereas some of the members have neither paid as per the revised rate nor entered into fresh agreements of lease. 10. I have further perused Clause 13 of the lease agreement which gives a right to the respondent Board to renew the said lease, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The increase of the rent vide the Office Order dated 22.03.2019 is on the basis of the Government of Nagaland Notification dated 24.10.2016. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the action on the part of the respondent No. 5 to adopt the said notification is arbitrary or unreasonable when all other general/commercial buildings belonging to the Government of Nagaland would be making a payment in terms of the Notification dated 24.10.2016. In that view of the matter, the challenge made to the Office Order dated 22.03.2019 is misconceived and not maintainable. In view of the opinion expressed by this Court that the Order dated 22.03.2019 is not arbitrary and unreasonable, this Court is also of the opinion that no interference is called for in respect to the Office Order dated 12.07.2019 and the impugned letter dated 13.08.2019, more so, in view of the categorical submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 22.03.2019, the petitioner does not wish to challenge the Order dated 12.07.2019 as well as the letter dated 13.08.2019. As regards the challenge made to the Order dated 24.10.2019, it appears from there that the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur had asked the said member to make the payment on/or before a particular date, failing which necessary proceedings will be initiated for eviction. As regards the challenge made to the Order dated 24.10.2019, it appears from there that the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur had asked the said member to make the payment on/or before a particular date, failing which necessary proceedings will be initiated for eviction. The said order under no circumstances, affect the rights of the members of the petitioner association in as much as it was only an intimation that proceedings for eviction will be initiated. It is needless to mention that the Deputy Commissioner or any authority conducts any action for eviction, the same has to be done by taking due recourse to the provisions of law. Now, going back to the facts of the instant case and in view of the developments which had ensued pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, it has been mentioned by both the counsels that there are certain dues as on date, to be paid by the members of the petitioner association. It is also the categorical case of both the parties that it is necessary to enter into fresh lease agreements with the respondent No. 5 to use and occupy their leased premises for which the members of the petitioner association are willing to enter into respective fresh lease agreements. 11. On 02.03.2022, when this matter was listed, this Court had asked the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to take instruction as to if the members of the petitioner association would enter into a lease agreement, how much increase in the rent beyond the rent increased by the Order dated 22.03.2019 in as much as the period of 3 (three) years is about to expire from 22.03.2019. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent submits on instruction that the increase of rent beyond the rate fixed on 22.03.2019 would be 10% upon a fresh lease being entered into and in that regard, draws the attention of this Court to the minutes of the meeting held on 08.02.2019, wherein the respondent No. 5 had decided that the rent would be revised every 3 (three) years. She specifically, therefore, submits that only for the purpose of increasing the rent for this particular period starting in 2022, the respondent No. 5 have agreed to increase the lease rent by 10%. She specifically, therefore, submits that only for the purpose of increasing the rent for this particular period starting in 2022, the respondent No. 5 have agreed to increase the lease rent by 10%. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the respondent No. 5, on account of not receiving the rent, is in great difficulty and under such circumstances, have not been able to disburse the salary to its employees and as such, it is just and necessary that the members of the petitioner association makes the payment immediately, and in that regard, have stated that there is an outstanding of Rs. 1,42,65,134/- as on January, 2022. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of COVID and the lockdowns, the members of the petitioner association have been greatly affected and is hard-pressed for money and as such, it would be very difficult on their part to immediately pay the entire dues by each of the members of the petitioner association and as such, submits that within a period of 8 (eight) months from the date of the instant order, the members of the petitioner association would clear their outstanding to the respondent no. 5. 14. Taking into consideration the stands taken by both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and fair that the members of the petitioner association clears their entire outstanding including that would accrue till 31st March, 2022 to the respondent No. 5 authority within a period of 6 (six) months from today. The respondent No. 5 shall on the basis of the instant order permit the members of the petitioner association to pay in installments so that the entire outstanding including the amount which would accrue till 31st March, 2022, could be paid within the period stipulated herein. The members of the petitioner association and the respondent authority may, if the members of the petitioner association wish to continue with the tenancy, enter into fresh lease agreements on the terms and conditions agreed upon between them, however, the increase of the rent for this particular period from 2022-2025 shall not be more than 10%. Such agreements shall be preferably entered into w.e.f. 1st April, 2022. 15. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.