APPALA NAIDU Y Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER SETTLEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition contends that the petitioners are threatened to be evicted on the ground that they have not paid the enhanced licence fee with.effect from 1986.

(3.) The learned Counsel for- the respondents contends that the Respndent-" Railways have absolute discretion to enhance the licence fee by giving a notice of 30 days. It is admitted that notice in respect of enhancement of licence fee was given in December, 1998 and the enhanced licence fee was demanded to be paid with effect from January 1999,and also the arrears. It is apparent that clause. ,17 of the licence agreement relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent, cannot be interpreted to authorise the respondent to enhance the licence fee retrospectively. The quantum of licence fee is a matter of agreement between the parties. It is always open to the occupants not to agree to pay enhanced licence fee and be prepared for the consequences namely quittirig the 'premises in question. Thus, I am of the. 'opinion that the, licence fee cannot be enhanced retrospectively and the respondents cannot compel the occupants-licencees to pay the enhanced licence fee for the period prior to issuance of notice by the respondents under clause 17 of the licence agreement. It is therefore, directed "that the respondents shall not evict the petitioners 'on the petitioners agreeing to pay the enhanced rate of licence fee with effect from January 1999. Accordingly the petitioners are directed to execute licence agreement within four weeks incorporating the terms relating to payment of enhanced licence fee and to deposit the said licence fee within three weeks thereafter. On the failure to deposit within the said period it shall be open to the respondents to take such steps as they are advised in evicting the petitioners.