SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHOP /Plot No. 13 was allotted on lease hold basis to one Shri Mukat Ram son of Shri Bakhtawar Singh. This plot was sublet to the appellant. It appears that Shri Mukat Ram son of Shri Bakhtawar Singh was also the allottee of Shop/Plot No. 14 and that too was sublet by him to one Shri Kulbhushan Kumar. These allotments were on lease hold basis and there was default in payment of the lease amount. Shri Kulbhushan Kumar sought transfer of the allotment on lease hold basis as per the then prevalent policy on payment of the rent for the past ten years as transfer fee. On the other hand, the appellant made a request to deposit the subletting fee and rent. The respective requests were accepted by the Municipal Council on 17.08.2001. The resolutions in favour of the appellant and Shri Kulbhushan Kumar No. 571 and 572 respectively were passed.

(2.) IT , however, appears that subsequently before the Commissioner, the appellant volunteered to pay the transfer fee.

(3.) THE only plea urged before us by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has not been meted a similar treatment, though he is identically situated. It was the same person, who created two sub -tenancies in respect of his two Plots, i.e., one in favour of the appellant and another in favour of Shri Kulbhushan Kumar. The case of Shri Kulbhushan Kumar stands regularised as per the then policy, whereby the allotment on lease hold rights stand transferred on payment of ten years lease amount and, thus, the appellant should also be treated identically.