MOINA DEVI RATHI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents when the matter was taken up for hearing. The petitioner, namely, Smti Moina Devi Rathi, has a plot of land on ward No. 3 in Gosaigaon on which an RCC building stands and the said building was let out to the Government of Assam for accommodation to the Office of Director of Employment Exchange, Gosaigaon, Korkrajhar. Rent was fixed at Rs. 1411/- per month with effect from the date of occupation in the building and to enhance the monthly rent the petitioner requested the respondents. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., made recommendation to re-fix the rent of the building and sent a letter on 27.08.1991 to the Assistant Employment Officer. The rate was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 2,932/- per month with effect to 08.10.1995. According to the petitioner, the Assistant Employment Officer of Gosaigaon Employment Exchange submitted a letter to the Director of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam on 27.07.1999 enclosing thereto a statement showing full particulars of arrear house rent payable to the present petitioner. The said letter and the statement are annexed to this writ petition as Annexure-I. From perusal of the same, it appears that the sum of Rs. 43,401/- was already paid to the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 2,16,964/- was till unpaid as on 27.07.1999. Despite repeated letters from the side of the petitioner as well as reminder from the Assistant Employment Officer, Gosaigaon, the Government did not release the amount and as such the petitioner who is a lady had to urge this Court praying for her legitimate dues which according to the petitioner is Rs. 3,00,140/-.

(2.) This writ petition was admitted on 13.12.2006. More than 7 years have elapsed in the meantime yet the Government has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition till date. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, no one from the Government's side was present to dispute the claim of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, on the failure of the respondents to file an affidavit denying the averment made in the writ petition, the pleadings in the writ petition are deemed to be correct.

(3.) State being a tenant was duty bound to the discharge liability under Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 but unfortunately not only all these provisions of law have been violated but also the equitable consideration has also been swept under the carpet by the negligent conduct of the authorities of the Government. Fact remains; the petitioner is landlord and is entitled house rent from Government. The Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 equally applies whether a tenant is a Government authority or a private person.