ARVINDBHAI N LEUVA Vs. AMRELI NAGARPALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein challenge the demand raised by the Municipality arising from grant of occupancy rights in respect of certain shops to the petitioners by way of public auction, the demand having arisen from the terms and conditions of the auction.

(2.) Certain facts are not in dispute and/or indisputable.

(3.) The respondent-Municipality had constructed a shopping centre which was in the form of a number of shops. The Municipality had issued a public notice for auctioning the said shops. The petitioners participated in the said auction and the respective petitioners were successful bidders at the auction in respect of Shop No. 36, Shop No. 4, Shop No. 34 and Shop No. 8 respectively. The petitioners, as successful bidders in respect of particularly these four shops, were required to pay occupancy price as demanded by the Municipality. Possession was handed over in respect of the relevant shops to each of the petitioners. The petitioners, are thereafter, occupying the respective shops and carrying on their respective businesses in those shops. However, the petitioners contend that subsequently a further demand was raised by way of monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 300/-, Rs. 500/-, Rs. 300/- and Rs. 500/- respectively in respect of each of the said shops, which is illegal, unjustified and outside the scope of the allotment made to the petitioners in pursuance of the public auction. It was contended that the occupancy price paid by each of the petitioners as a result of their being successful bidders in respect of each of the shops at about the time of handingover possession to each of them, was a consolidated amount for the use and occupation of each of the shops for a period of ten years as per the terms of the auction, and no further demand for monthly payment, whether by way of rent or otherwise, would be justified on facts or in law.