Back
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
KARDAK ETE, J
THE BIZARI VENEER and SAW MILLS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA and 9 ORS - Respondent
WP(C) / 2712 / 2015
Decided On : 23-01-2025
(A) Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Sections 3 and 4 - Writ petition challenging the rent fixed by the Committee for land occupied by CRPF - Petitioner contended that the rent fixed was disproportionately low compared to fair rent - Court found that the petitioner failed to establish valid transfer of land and that the rent fixed was fair and reasonable. (Paras 2 , 35 )
(B) Jurisdiction - The court held that the provisions of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 were not applicable as no requisition was made - The court emphasized that the petitioner had alternative remedies under the law. (Paras 26 , 23 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the rent of Rs.15,893/- fixed by the Committee for land occupied by the CRPF, asserting it was below fair market value. The petitioner claimed ownership of the land but failed to provide valid transfer documents. (Paras 2 , 19 )
Findings of Court:
The court found no infirmity in the Committee's decision to fix the rent at Rs.15,893/- per month, which included a 10% annual increment, and dismissed the writ petition. (Paras 35 , 36 )
Issues: The main issues were whether the rent fixed was fair and whether the petitioner had valid ownership of the land. (Paras 31 , 35 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner did not establish valid ownership of the land and that the rent fixed was reasonable based on the Committee's assessment. (Paras 35 , 36 )
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
Heard Mr. R. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned CGC appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6, Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam and Mr. J. Chutia, learned standing counsel for the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC).
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned decision dated 15.11.2024, taken by the Committee constituted for reassessing the rent of the land under the occupation of the CRPF, belonging to the petitioner, whereby the Committee has fixed the rent at Rs.15,893/- (Rupees fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety three) only, from the date of settlement i.e. 06.04.2002, with annual increment of 10% per annum to offset the increase in market price/inflation. Essentially the petitioner is aggrieved with the quantum on the ground that the rent fixed as above by the Committee is in a lower side, which is not proportionate with the fair rent.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a plywood factory M/s. Wood Craft Products Limited, situated at Dilajee, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, consisting of 59 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas of land together with several factory sheds, residential and non-residential building, several structures of different natures standing thereon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the factory premises’) through a deed of agreement for sale dated 06.04.2002. Subsequently the land was transferred from the name of erstwhile M/s. Wood Craft Products Ltd., to the present petitioner by order dated 21.8.2013, bearing No.DTC/Tax/Private Holding/2006-07/9/130 passed by the Chairman, Diphu Town Committee.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that due to prevailing law and order problem in the area, the Respondent No.7 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong at Diphu, directed the erstwhile M/s. Wood Crafts Product Limited to th provide accommodation in its closed factory site, to the 13 Bn. of the CRPF, vide Memo/order No.KGC.194/2000-2001/120(A), dated 07.09.2000. Accordingly, M/s. Wood Craft Products Limited, on principle agreed for th accommodation to the said 13 Bn. CRPF, as directed by the Respondent No.7 and also agreed not to charge anything against the accommodation keeping in mind that the same is a temporary arrangement for a short period by its letter No.DHP/6/153/2000-2001 dated 08.09.2000. However, the petitioner being the owner of the premises cannot be stopped from claiming just fair rent and electricity bill relating to consumption of electricity bill by the respondents from the date of occupation of the premises by them, which the petitioner is otherwise entitled to get under the law.
5. Accordingly, on 25.09.2000 the respondent No.7 accorded permission to Respondent No.4 for occupation of the factory premises by them by order No.KGC-194/PT-11/2000/135 dated 25.09.2000 and the resultantly, CRPF personnel occupied the factory premises in the month of September, 2000 and were continuing to occupy the same till May, 2002. Thereafter, the said 13th Bn. CRPF was replaced by another 97 Bn. CRPF and they occupied the same upto 15.03.2005 and again they were replaced by another battalion namely 121 Bn. CRPF and since then the CRPF has been occupying the factory premises till date.
6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the meantime the Respondent No.6 i.e. the Commandant of 121 CRPF Battalion, issued a certificate dated 28.11.2006 wherein details of the occupation of the factory premises comprising of about 21 bighas land is mentioned. Thereafter on 15.06.2006, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Respondent No.4 and stated the entire facts of the case and requested him to make the payment of outstanding electricity bills and for payment of fair rent.
7. The petitioner submitted letters to the Respondent No.7 for payment of electricity bills including 19.05.2005, 23.07.2005, 7.8.
The court upheld the rent fixed by the Committee as fair, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to prove valid ownership of the land.
when a suit is filed for eviction of a tenant for being a defaulter in payment of rent, can the tenant thereafter file an application for fixation of rent.
Point of Law : Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uniformed by reason is per se arbitrary.
The court reaffirmed that fair rent determined by Rent Control Courts must reflect current market conditions, considering economic factors and evidence of comparable properties.
The court affirmed that landlords can seek fixation of fair rent under statutory law even during the existence of a long-term lease agreement.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of G.O.(Ms).No.92, Municipality Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.07.2007, which mandated a 15% increase in re....
The petitioner is not entitled to occupational charges beyond the date of vacation by Security Forces, and claims for additional land are declined unless rent for underlying land is not considered.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
