SANDESH SUBUDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7.9.2009 and 14.9.2009 respectively passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Rourkela in RFA No.4 of 2007 affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2006 and 9.11.2006 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rourkela in C.S No.62 of 2004 in a suit for declaration that the order passed by the General Manager, S.E.Railway/GRC dated 9.5.2001 for enhancement of rent of Shop No.5 from Rs.396/- to Rs.32,933/- situated at Railway Market Complex, Diesel Colony, Bondamunda and the notice issued by the Senior Sectional Engineer (Works), S.E Railway, Bondamunda dated 7.7.2003 for eviction of the plaintiff is arbitrary and liable to be withdrawn.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that he is a tenant under the defendants. In the year 1986, he was allotted suit shop no.5 Main Market at Railway Market Complex, Diesel Colony, Bondamunda. There was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2. The rent was fixed at Rs.396/- per annum payable on the 1st January of each year. The plaintiff took possession of the suit shop and was paying licence fee regularly till 2001 without any interruption. While the matter stood thus, the defendants served a notice on him and other shop owners enhancing rent from Rs.396/- to Rs.32,933/- @ Rs.1492/- per square meter with effect from 1.4.2001. On 4.6.2002, a notice was issued by the defendant no.4 to the plaintiff to pay the enhanced rent of the suit shop within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. On receipt of such notice, the shop owners made several representations to the defendants but the defendants maintained a sphinx like silence.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that the shop was allotted to the plaintiff. As per the decision of the Railway Board, the rent was enhanced. No representation was received from the plaintiff relating to the enhancement of rent. It is further stated that there has been no violation of the principle of natural justice. There was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants. As per the agreement, the rent was enhanced from time to time. But then, the plaintiff never paid rent regularly and defaulted in paying the same as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Since no notice has been served under Section 80 CPC, the suit is not maintainable.