NABAKISHORE ROUT Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR REGIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of the building on plot No. 213 -A of Saheednagar in Bhubaneswar town. The building is said to have been completed on 11. 9. 1978 and was let out to opposite party No. 1, the Regional Director, Health and Family Welfare, Bhubaneswar, with effect from 15. 9. 1978 on a monthly rent of Rs. 746/ -. According to the petitioner, the monthly rent of the building, so assessed by opposite party No. 2, the Executive Engineer, Central Division, C. P. W.D, Bhubaneswar, was too low and, the petitioner accepted the assessment of rent in his anxiety to let out the building. By letter dated 24. 6.1981 (vide Annexure -1) the petitioner moved opposite party No. 1 to make re -assessment of rent of the building. It is alleged that on 2. 11. 1981 opposite party No. 2 on re -assessment fixed the fair rent of the building at Rs. 1584/ - per month effective from 15. 9. 1981 (vide Annxure -2) and the same was communicated to the petitioner by opposite party No. 1 by letter dated 5th February 1982 (vide Annexure -3). Accordingly, opposite party No. 1 paid rent to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1584/ -per month from 15. 9. 1981 till the end of May, 1982, i.e., for a total period of 8 months and 16 days and the petitioner accepted the same. By letter dated 9.11.1982 (vide Annexure -4) opposite party No, 2 intimated opposite party No. 1 that the re -assessment of rent could be done only after expiry of a period of 5 years from the date of the original assessment as per O. M. No. 16013 (1)/72 -Vol. IV (III) dated 1. 9. 1982 of the Directorate of Estates, Government of India, and, therefore, the fair rent certificate issued on 2. 11: 1981 in respect of the building of the petitioner should be treated as cancelled and the rent should be paid at the old rate till the expiry of the period of five years from the date of the original assessment. Pursuant to the letter in Annexure -4, opposite party No. 1 by letter dated 24.12. 1982 (vide Annexure -5) intimated the petitioner that the house rent would be paid. @ Rs. 746/ -instead of Rs. 1584/ -per month and the excess amount already paid to the petitioner would be adjusted against the future house rent. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for quashing of the order in Annexure -4 canceling the re -assessment of the rent of the building.

(2.) OPPOSITE Party No. 1 in his counter -affidavit has denied his liability to pay rent at the enhanced rate. It has been stated therein that the payment of rent at the enhanced rate was made under a bona fide belief that opposite party No. 1 is bound to pay rent as assessed by opposite party No. 2.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the building of the petitioner was let out to opposite party No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 746/ -with effect from 15. 9. 1978. The said rent of Rs. 746/ -was assessed by opposite party No. 2. It is also admitted that the petitioner moved opposite party No. 1 under Annexure -1 dated 24. 6. 1981 to make re -assessment of the rent as the stipulated rent, according to the petitioner, was less than the fair market rent. In Annexure -2 dated 2. 11. 1981 opposite patty No. 2 re -assessed the fair rant of the building in question at Rs.l534/ -per month with effect from 15. 9. 1981. Opposite party No. 1 thereafter agreed to pay the rent at the enhanced rate as per the re -assessment by the Central Public Works Department and in fact made payment at that rate for the period from 15. 9. 1981 to the end of May 1982. But strangely enough opposite party No. 1 informed the petitioner in his communication dated 24. 12. 1982 (vide Annexure -5) that the enhanced rate of rent was not payable before expiry of five years from the date of the original assessment and, therefore, the rent already paid at the enhanced rate in excess of the stipulated rate would adjust the house rent bill from June, 1982 onwards. This was evidently due to the fact that opposite party No. 2 pointed out to opposite party No. 1 under Annexure -4 that the re -assessment of rent should be done only after expiry of five years from the date of the original assessment as per Govt. of India, (Directorate of Estates O. M. No. 15013 (1) 72 -Vol. IV (III) dated 1. 9.1982). The learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for the opposite parties has strenuously argued that no fault can be found with opposite party No. 1 who paid the enhanced rent in pursuance of the re -assessment of rent made by the Central Public Works Department and he had no other alternative after receipt of Annexure -4 than to pay the rent at the original stipulated rate.