NAGAR NIGAM, JAIPUR THROUGH THE MAYOR, NAGAR NIGAM OFFICE, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR Vs. MS. SHRERIT AUTO PVT. LTD. THROUGH SHRI K.K. PODDAR, NANDAN D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil first appeal under section 96 CPC filed by the defendant-appellant is directed against the judgement and decree dated 16. 11. 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jaipur (hereinafter "the trial court") whereby the learned trial court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) The facts leading to the instant first appeal can be briefly summarised as thus: That the plaintiff-respondent is a private limited company doing business in the name of M/s Shrerit Auto Private Limited. The plaintiff-respondent purchased a plot bearing no B-19, Govind Marg, in front of Dusshera Garden, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (hereinafter "the plot"). The purported use of the said land was residential" and the plaintiff-respondent applied to the defendant-appellant to get the same converted to "commercial". It was stated in the plaint that the defendant-appellant took the decision to allow the conversion of the said plot from residential to commercial on 8th September, 2003. It was further stated in the plaint that the rates of conversion charges prevailing at that time for such conversion was 40% per meter of the reserved price of the residential plot and on the said date, the reserved price of the plot was Rs. 2550 per sq. meter. However, due to the inaction of the employees of defendant-appellant, the notice/information regarding permitting the conversion of land from residential to commercial was not given to the plaintiff-respondent till as late as 31st August 2005, and by that time, the applicable conversion charges were hiked to 7650 per sq. meter, with the result that plaintiff-respondent who had to pay Rs. 12,69, 275 as conversion charges, was now required to pay Rs. 38,39,229. Certain other allegations regarding lease money having been wrongly charged were also made in the plaint. Though the plaintiff-respondent paid the entire conversion charges as demanded by the defendantappellant, it later filed the present civil suit to recover the excess amount paid along with interest of 18% thereon.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement wherein it is stated that on making application by the plaintiff for changing the land use from residential to commercial, notification regarding change of land use and accordingly the lease money was settled again and advance commercial lease money for half year from September, 2005 to February, 2006 was calculated to Rs. 4,79,904/-, Rs. 606/- was charged as residential lease money and interest of Rs. 282/- charged. It was then mentioned that the fact regarding not giving notice for settling the lease money was wrong as the plaintiff defendant deposited the amount of conversion charges after obtaining challan form from the office of the defendant. It was also mentioned that the conversion charges were charged at the rate of 40% of the residential reserved price which was Rs. 7650/- per sq. meter. It was then mentioned that in the meeting of the Finance Committee held on 10. 2006 it was decided that if the plaintiff company has any objection regarding the rate of amount charged from it, it can file its representation so that decision can be taken after hearing it. But no such representation was filed by the plaintiff company and it has deposited the amount. It was then mentioned that after 1. 9. 2007 the plaintiff company did not deposit the amount of lease money which comes to Rs. 4,97,904/-. In relation to the lease money it was further submitted that on conversion of the land from residential to commercial the lease money was decided as per the rate prevalent at the relevant time which was deposited by the plaintiff without any protest which is not refundable. The conversion charges were also recovered at the rate of 40% of the reserved price which at the relevant time was Rs. 7650/- per sq. meter and thus, Rs. 38,39,3229/- was rightly charged. Thus, it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed. That on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following five issues:-