RAM GOPAL Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the writ petitions are at the instance of the allottees or representatives of the allottees of shops belonging to the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. The Corporation was demanding rents calculated at an escalated value of 20% and over the agreed rent and sought for the periodical escalation at the same rate over the enhanced rent for every 3 years. The petitioners, who were the allottees, took up a contention that the amount that would become payable, could not be a matter of unilateral increase and that the original documents of leases must be produced by the Corporation before any admission for an increase could be made and recovered from the allottees. According to them, the action for ejectment was not justified when the petitioners could not be turned as unauthorized occupants. The orders of eviction had been passed by the authorities constituted under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and the petitioners challenged the same as legally untenable. At the time when the notice was ordered, this court had directed the rents claimed by the Corporation to be paid specifying certain amounts as admitted by the petitioners themselves as due on the basis of calculations made by them and the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat for consideration. It appears that there had been independent challenge through writ petitions for the increase in rents that were claimed by the Corporation and this court has upheld the increase of rent at the rate of 20%. The counsel for the petitioners states that although there was an issue of whether 20% increase should be on the original rent every 3 years or whether the amount should be calculated on the increased rent every 3 years, the petitioners are all now willing to pay at an increase rent of 20% on the enhanced rent every 3 years. That narrows the dispute to whether the petitioner would be liable to pay for the amounts for a period more than 3 years prior to the date of the filing of the petitions. The counsel for the petitioners would refer me to Section 382 of the Municipal Corporation Act which reads as under:--

(2.) The contention is that the Corporation cannot claim the arrears for more than 3 years from the date on which the sums became due. In my view, the argument cannot be that the claim for arrears could be only for a period of 3 years. It must be remembered that Section 382 inhibits a proceeding of recovery of rent for a period of 3 years. None of the petitions is a petition for recovery of rent. All the petitions are for ejectment on the ground that the rents had not been paid as they were liable and hence, they must be ejected. The petitioners would face the prospect of ejectment if ever they do not regularize their possession and they continued to be unlawful occupants. The characterization as unauthorized occupants would attach itself to every situation where the parties are not ad idem on the liability to pay and the landlord refuses concurrence to allow the benefit of tenancy to such tenants or allottees who are not willing to abide by the new terms. While a suit or a proceeding for recovery of rent could be barred by limitation, a petition for ejectment if it has to be warded off, the tenants will have an option either to quit and force the landlord to recover rents only for 3 years prior to the date of the institution of such proceedings or he may abide by the demand to concede to pay the accumulated arrears and treat themselves as tenants under subsisting contract which the landlord and the tenants have come to accept. If the tenants are now prepared to accept the increase of 20% cumulatively every 3 years and thwart an action for ejectment, I would perforce find an option for such tenants to legitimize their holding by paying the entire arrears of what have accumulated. Although the claim for rent are also reported to have been made in the petitions, I will justify the Corporation's stand for securing the entire arrears by the fact that they are otherwise entitled to orders of ejectment. If the tenants therefore want continuance of their possession, they shall also be liable to pay all the rents which are accumulated. This situation has arisen in cases for coming under Rent Control legislations where the court's power to direct all the amounts to be paid without any fetter of limitation in actions before authorities constituted under the Act (see for instance, Khadi Gram Udyog Trust v. Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir Jarsaiya Ghat, 1978 1 RCR(Rent) 220

(3.) Only in respect of two petitions, there are some issues which would also require to be made in view of certain objections taken by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation. In CWP No. 8915 of 2010, the original allottee/tenant appears to be one Gulshan Kumar. The petition has been filed by one Rohit Sachdeva. The counsel for the petitioner states that he is the son of the allottee Gulshan Kumar and, therefore, he claims such benefits as his deceased father had in respect of the property. The response by the Corporation is that the fact of death of the allottee and the claim by the petitioner as son have not been brought through entries in the records of the Corporation by any communication which the petitioner has made to the Corporation. I proceed on the petitioner's assertion and statement in the writ petition describing himself as the son of Gulshan Kumar. The petitioner shall also furnish proof to the respondents of his claim under Gulshan Kumar and regularize his possession. If such a request is made within 4 weeks from the date of this order, the same shall be favourably considered by the Corporation.