NIRUBEN BHAGUBHAI CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.22625 of 2005. By the impugned order, while admitting the main matter, the learned Single Judge granted interim relief to the appellant to the effect that the order by which the rent is revised by the Collector, at the time of renewing the lease, with retrospective effect shall remain stayed on condition that the appellant, who is the original petitioner, shall deposit an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Collector and shall also continue to pay annual revised rent, regularly. It is this order, which is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) MR. Rituraj M. Meena, learned Advocate for the appellant, submitted that the appellant was, initially, granted land on lease for 10 years, at the rate of Rs.3800/- per annum for the purpose of running kerosene depot. The land in question is situated in Mandvi taluka in Surat district. At the time, when the initial lease came to an end, the appellant applied for its renewal. Pursuant thereto, the lease was renewed, but, the rate of annual rent was also revised from Rs.3800/- per annum to Rs.82,500/- per annum along with interest and that too with retrospective effect. Here, it is required to be noted that the original lease came to an end in the year 1997 and it seems that the petitioner continued to occupy the land in question for the purpose of carrying on business of selling kerosene. It may also be noted that, while admitting the main matter, the learned Single Judge, prima facie, came to the conclusion that the revising annual rent with retrospective effect is harsh. Mr. Meena, lastly submitted that the interim relief granted earlier be continued and the hearing of the main matter be expedited.

(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers of the case. In our view, the learned Single Judge has passed a most equitable order and has rightly stayed the operation of the order, whereby the appellant was directed to pay the revised rent with retrospective effect along with interest. It is an admitted position that the appellant continued to possess the land in question during the period from 1998-2004, without paying a single penny and considering the said aspect, though, the learned Single Judge stayed the operation of the order under challenge, directed the appellant to deposit an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the concerned Collector. It is also not in dispute that the order under challenge is an interim order, which is passed in a petition, pending before the learned Single judge. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is most equitable one and we find no ground to interfere with the same.