DIPALI DHAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are that the Petitioner let -out her building situate on a plot appertaining to C.S. Plot Nos. 8840/24882 and 8440/24881 at Kunjaban to the Respondent No. 2 viz. Secretary, Tripura Board of Secondary Education on the condition that the rent of the said building would be fixed as per approved standard rate of the State Government and the said rent would be increased faom time to time as per re -assessment of house rent by the Respondent No. 3, Executive Engineer, Agartala Division No. 1. As per these terms and conditions the Respondent No. 2 took occupation of the building with effect from 15.9.1976 and also paid the rent as per the assessment made by the Respondent No. 3 for a period of 5 (five) years starting from 15.9.1976 to 15.9.1981.

(2.) AFTER expiry of this period the Respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to the Respondent No. 3 on 28.8.1982 (Annexure -2) for re -assessment of the fair rent. On receipt of that letter Respondent No. 3 reassessed the rent at the rate of Rs. 1927/ - per mensem for the period starting from 15.9.1981 to 23.9.1982 and at the rate of Rs. 2417/ - per mensem starting from 24.9.1982 onwards (Annexure -3). As per this assessment the Petitioner also got the rent from Respondent No. 2 upto 15.9.1986. Thereafter the Respondent No. 2 again wrote a letter on 18.8.1988 to the Respondent No. 3 for re -assessment of the house rent of the building from 16.9.1986 (Annexure -4 series). The Respondent No. 3, on receipt of this communication, re -assessed the standard rent of the building at the rate of Rs. 3124/ - per mensem for the period starting from 16.9.1986 to 5.7.1988 and at the rate of Rs. 3820/ - per mensem for the period starting from 6.7.1988 to 15.9.1991 for the first phase and at the rate of Rs. 7795/ - per mensem for the period starting from 16.9.1991 to 6.1.1992 and at the rate of Rs 8744/ - per mensem with effect from 7.1.1992 onwards for the second phase for a maximum period of 5 (five) years (Annexure -5).

(3.) BUT it was alleged that though Respondent No. 3 re -assessed the rent of the building of the Petitioner from 16.9.1986 at a higher rate (Annexure -5), the Respondent No. 2 paid the rent of the Petitioner at the rate of Rs. 2417/ - per mensem for the period starting from 16.9.1986 to 31.12.1993 only. According to the Petitioner, as per re -assessed rate the Petitioner was entitled to get the rent as per her bill submitted under Annexure -7 series. It is stated that as per the bill under Annexure -7 series the Petitioner was entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 1,86,844.91 paise but the Respondent No. 2 did not pay this amount inspite of repealed approaches. So, the Petitioner submitted a notice by registered post through her advocate for payment of the aforesaid sum together with compensation at the rate of Rs. 12% but the Respondent No. 2 did not clear up the dues. It is stated that the Petitioner is also entitled to get the fees which she deposited for assessment of the valuation of her land.