SRINIVASSA ENTERPRISES Vs. BANGALORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The facts leading up to this writ petition are as follows:- The first respondent, now known as Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as 'the BBMP' for brevity), had called for tenders in respect of a Guest house situated at Tank Bund Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore, as per the Public Notieedated 29.8.1993. The petitioner was the successful tenderer who had offered a monthly rent of Rs.72,350/- and also undertook to invest a sum of Rs.50 lakh for improving the said building. His offer having been accepted by an endorsement dated 16.7.1994, a deed of licence was duly executed on 10.8.1994. The term of licence was for a period of three years with an option for renewal reserved by the BBMP while enhancing the licence fee. The petitioner claims to have invested a large amount of money exceeding Rs.50 lakh which was undertaken to be invested in the renovation of the premises. Before the expiry of the term, the petitioner by his representation dated 30/5/1997, sought for renewal of the licence for a further period of five years. There was no response from the first respondent. The request was renewed as on 14/7/1997. It was only by an endorsement dated 27/8/1997 that it was indicated by the BBMP that it proposed to renew the lease on the condition that the rent was enhanced by 50% and that there be an annual enhancement of 15% in the rentals. The petitioner however contended that the proposal was highly unconscionable and requested for a lenient consideration. There was no reply to the same. However, by an endorsement produced as Annexure-J, which does not bear a date, the petitioner was informed that where the rental in respect of the premises belonging to the BBMP is above Rs.100.00, the rental is normally enhanced by 25% and in the instant case, the rental would at least be Rs.90,438.00. The petitioner made a further appeal to the first respondent more particularly, the Town Planning and Development Committee. The said committee taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the petitioner's case, by its resolution dated 5.8.1988 is said to have recommended the renewal of licence in favour of the petitioner without the enhancement of the rental. A copy of the resolution in this regard is at Annexure-K to the writ petition. However, the first respondent issued a notice dated 5/1/1999, stating that the Taxation and Finance Committee of the first respondent has decided to enhance the rental to Rs.2 lakh per month by its resolution said to have been passed on 17.11.1998 and 28.11.1998 retrospectively making a demand for the arrears that had accrued. The petitioner was taken unaware by this demand as he had no knowledge of the rent being enhanced as he was not placed on notice nor afforded an hearing by the Taxation and Finance Committee in enhancing the rent, in variation with the resolution dated 5.8.1998 of the Town Planning and Development Committee. The petitioner therefore requested for a certified copy of the resolution passed by the committee which was denied to the petitioner by the BBMP by its endorsement dated 29.1.1999. The petitioner, therefore, asserted that in view of the earlier resolution by the Town Planning and Development Committee dated 5.8.1998, the petitioner was not liable to pay the enhanced rent which was sought to be demanded under the notice dated 5/1/1999. However, the petitioner thereafter received a notice on 8/9/1999, demanding a sum of Rs.31,50,340/-, which was based on the resolution of the Taxation and Finance Committee dated 5/1/1999 referred to hereinabove. The first respondent followed through by entering the licensed premises and locking 19 rooms. It is at this point of time that the petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition in WP 35273/1999. This Court, after hearing the writ petition, by its order dated 11/3/2002, disposed of the petition with the following observations:-

(3.) In the first instance, the petitioner filed an application for amendment to include an additional prayer which was allowed and thereafter an interim order was passed at the instance of the petitioner dated 25.8.2003, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25 lakh within two weeks from that date and Rs.25 lakh within 6 weeks from that date and upon initial deposit of Rs.25 lakh, the respondent-Corporation which had by then taken possession of the subject premises was to hand over possession to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was directed to pay the licence fee of Rs.2 lakh per month without default and the matter stood adjourned. Apparently, the petitioner had not complied with the direction to make the aforesaid deposits, which entailed the respondents in filing LA.II/ 2003, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 10.12.2003, which recorded noncompliance of the order by the petitioner and vacated the interim order granted earlier. The petitioner complained to this Court of the petitioner's moveables on the premises being shifted to an unknown destination. This Court directed maintenance of status-quo till 18/5/2005. The matter being listed on 17/5/2005, the order of status-quo stood vacated.