Adherence to the provisions of the Goa Municipalities Act in determining lease rates for municipal property and the obligation to follow due process of law in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

M S Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. A. D. Bhobe for the appellants and Mr. H. D. Naik for the respondent no.1. Mr Bhobe points out that respondents no.2 and 3 have been served and in any case, at least for the purpose of this appeal they are not the contesting respondents.

2. Accordingly, this appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the appeal is taken up for disposal forthwith.

3. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 08.03.2021 made by the learned District Judge, South Goa restraining the appellants from dispossessing the respondent no.1 of his business otherwise than by due process of law.

4. Ordinarily, there might have been no scope to interfere against the impugned order because, the direction in the impugned order is merely that the appellants should not dispossess respondent no.1 of his business otherwise than by due process of law. However, if the plaint and the relief clause in the plaint are perused then, the plaintiff's (respondent no.1) relief was that the notice dated 03.04.2017 for recovery of certain amounts to be declared as unenforceable and further, for a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner herein from taking any coercive steps for recovery of amount referred to in the notice dated 03.04.2017.

5. The application for temporary injunction was also made in terms of prayer clause (b) of the plaint.

6. There is a serious dispute between the parties about the amounts which the respondent no.1 is liable to pay for occupying the municipal property which admeasures 360 sq.mtrs. and from where respondent no.1 is operating a petrol pump.

7. Learned District Judge has referred to certain provisions of the Municipalities Act and taken the view that the amounts have to be determined by adhering to the said provisions. However, in doing so, the learned District Judge, has failed to take cognizance of the pleadings in paragraph 34 of the plaint instituted by respondent no.1, which read as follows:

"34. The Plaintiff submits that 'while the said issue of settlement of Rent was going on there were several Meetings held with the Defendants. It was finally decided that the said Rent would be fixed at Rs 15/Per Sq. Meter and which was agreeable to the Plaintiff and who gave his willingness to the same. The Plaintiff however asked that a fresh Lease be entered into for the said purpose. The same has not been done till date and the said issue is still pending with the Defendants."

8. This is a matter where there is no dispute that the appellant-municipal council is the owner of the suit property. There is a document of lease on record though, it is the case of the appellant-council that this lease has long expired. Mr. Bhobe submits that even in terms of the Goa Municipalities Act, a Council, cannot grant a lease for a period exceeding three years. Mr. Bhobe submits that in terms of the resolution passed by the Council, the rates have been determined particularly in cases where the lease period has expired.

9. At this stage, it is not necessary to go into the several issues that may have been raised in the suit. However, one thing is clear from paragraph 34 of the plaint that the respondent no.1 had agreed for the payment @ 15 per sq.mtr. which corresponds to Rs. 64,800/- in respect of the suit property. No doubt, this agreement was subject to fresh lease being entered. However, the pleadings in paragraph 34, at least suggest that respondent no.1 had no serious objections to make payments of annual lease rent of Rs. 64,800/- no doubt, without prejudice to its rights and contentions.

10. The record indicates that respondent no.1 is insisting upon the payment only @ Rs. 5000/- per annum which is the rate determined in the year 1962 or thereabouts. Mr. Bhobe submits that even this amount has not been paid. However, Mr. Naik submits that this amount has been paid. Again, at this stage, it is not necessary to go into this controversy.

11. Since, some equitable relief was applied for b