CRP/1336/2010 of State Bank of India Vs A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by Assistant Traffic Manager on 30 December 2014

ORDER:

This revision is preferred against orders dated 25-01-2010 in A.S.No.170/2009 on the file of Principal DistrictJudge, Visakhapatnam whereunder order dated 18-06-2009in E.C.No.01/2008 on the file of Estate Officer, APSRTC,Visakhapatnam was confirmed.

2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:

Appellant herein took the premises belonging torespondent herein on lease in the year 1984 and the rentwas fixed from time to time and finally according torespondent herein, the lease was extended on 01-04-2000and expired by 31-03-2003 and the rent was at Rs.5.04paisa per square feet and thereafter, a proposal was sent byrespondent for continuation of tenancy at the enhanced rentof 30% for which petitioner herein sought certain clarificationfrom its head office, but continued in possession till 31-03-2005 by paying earlier rent only and therefore, therespondent claimed enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.6.55paisa per square feet and also for damages on the groundthat the revision petitioner is in authorised occupation of thepremises. The revision petitioner resisted the claim andaccording to revision petitioner, the lease was againrenewed on 01-04-2000 for a period of five years, which wasexpired on 31-03-2005 on a rent of Rs.05.04 paisa persquare feet and the claim of the respondent herein that thelease ended by 31-03-2003 was not correct and the claim ofrespondent herein at the increased rate of Rs.6.55 paisa persquare feet is absolutely incorrect and there was noconcluded contract for payment of 30% enhancement ascontended by the respondent herein and the order of theEstate Officer and the Appellate Authority is not correct.

3. Heard arguments of both sides.

4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that both thelower authority and also appellate authority have erred inconcluding that there is an enhancement of rent of 30% overRs.5.04 paisa per square feet. He submitted that EstateOfficer has no power or jurisdiction to fix the rent under theprovisions of Public Premises (Eviction of UnauthorisedOccupants) Act 1968 and Section 7 of the Act empowersonly to recover the agreed rent payable, if it is not paid. Hesubmitted that the Estate Officer passed order dated 18-06-2009 without jurisdiction and the Appellate Authority hassimply confirmed the order without any valid grounds. Hesubmitted that at the time of renewal of lease on 01-04-2000,the agreement was it should be extended by five yearsending by 31-03-2005 and the revision petitioner herein interms of the same, vacated the premises in April, 2005 andat the time of vacating the premises, respondent herein hasnot raised any objection, as such the petition filed by therespondent before the Estate Officer is not maintainable. Hesubmitted that there is no concluded contract between theparties to recover rent at the rate of Rs.6.55 paisa from 01-04-2003, therefore, the orders of the Estate Officer and theAppellate Authority are completely illegal.

5. On the other hand, Advocate for first respondentsubmitted that though revision petitioner contended that thelease was extended from 01-04-2000 to 31-03-2005, there isno such agreement and the correspondence between the parties would clearly disclose that lease extended on 01-04-2000 was expired by 31-03-2003 and through a letter underEx.A2, the revision petitioner was informed that the extendedperiod is going to be expired by 31-03-2003 and as perEx.A5, the petitioner herein expressed its intention that theyintend to continue till

31-03-2005 and when the first respondent informed therevision petitioner that such continuation should be only on30% of increase from 01-04-2003 for that, there was noobjection from the revision petitioner, except saying that theywould consult their head office and thereafter, there was nocommunication from the revision petitioner disputing theproposal, therefore, it has to be treated that there is adeemed consent from the revision petitioner and both theEstate Officer and the Appellate Authority rightly discardedplea of the revision petitioner. He submitted that thoughEstate Officer awarded damages of Rs.5,07,084/-, the samewas set aside by the appellate authority only confining forthe arrears at the rate of 30% above the admitted rate ofRs.5.04 per square feet. He submitted that there are nogrounds to interference with the concurrent findings.

6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration inthis revision is whether the order of the Court below isproper, legal and correct?

7. Point:- Admittedly, the premises belong to firstrespondent herein and the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 is applicableto the property, which was in occupation of revision petitionerherein. One of the objection of the revision petitioner is thatunder Section 7 of the said Act, Estate Officer has no powerto determine quantum of rent, but here as seen from theimpugned orders, the Estate Officer has not fixed any rent onhis own, but only accepted the claim of the first respondentherein basing on the letter correspondence between theparties concerning lease terms and rate of rent or licencefee. From the facts, it is clear that the revision petitionerherein continued in the premises under the originalagreement of lease, therefore, till he vacate the premises, heis bound to pay licence fee or rent. Though revisionpetitioner contended that the tenure was extended byanother five years on 01-04-2000, the same cannot beaccepted in view of Ex.A4 through which, the firstrespondent herein informed the revision petitioner that theterm agreed on 01-04-2000 was only for three years andthrough that document, the revision petitioner was calledupon to accept the proposal for enhancement of licence feefor which revision petitioner replied that they intend tocontinue and that the proposal of the first respondent forenhancement was placed before their head office forconsideration. But the revision petitioner did not specificallyinformed first respondent disputing or denying the proposalfor enhancement and without any objection, continued till theend of March, 2005 and vacated the premises only in April,2005. So as rightly pointed out by Advocate for first

respondent, it has to be treated that there is a deemedconsent as petitioner continued in the premises, withoutchallenging the proposal for enhancement. After receipt ofEx.A7-notice, the revision petitioner continued in thepremises and at no point of time, denied its liability to paylicence fee at the enhanced rate or denied the demandmade by the first respondent herein for enhancement. Though the revision petitioner contended that the earlierenhancement was only 20% and the demand forenhancement for 30% is contrary to the circular instructionsof the Corporation, there is no supporting material for thesaid contention. When the revision petitioner contended thatthe renewal on 01-04-2000 was for a period of five years, it isits burden to prove the same by producing necessaryevidence either documentary or oral. Except the self-servingcontention of the revision petitioner, there is no material toshow that the renewal on 01-04-2000 was for the period offive years. It has not even produced any documentary proofto show that earlier renewals from 1984 are for a period offive years on each occasion. In the absence of any suchmaterial, the contention of the revision petitioner that he isonly liable to pay at the rate of Rs.5.04 paisa per square feetcannot be accepted. From the correspondence, it is clearthat the revision petitioner was in permissive possessionafter 31-03-2003 till it vacated the premises.

8. On a scrutiny of the entire material, I am of theconsidered view, that the orders of the Estate Officer andAppellate Authority are quite legal and there is no lack ofjurisdiction. Both Estate Officer and the Appellate Authorityhave rightly appreciated the material and that there is nomaterial irregularity in both the orders.

9. For these reasons, it is held that there are no grounds tointerfere with the orders of the appellate authority as it is awell reasoned order, which does not suffer from any materialirregularity.

10. Hence, revision is dismissed but under thecircumstances without costs.

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending inthis Civil Revision Petition, shall stand dismissed.

Date:30.12.2014mrb

__________________________

JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR