Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Kameshwar Prasad, son of Late Saryug Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.5625 of 2015
Decided on : 27-02-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Pooja Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ramit Satender, Adv.
The court upheld the validity of the penalty and rent enhancement clauses in the allotment letter, emphasizing the principle that a petitioner cannot challenge clauses after accepting the allotment and taking possession.
Headnote:
Rent Dispute - Allotment of Shops - 22.08.1998 - Clause 4, 13 - Penalty for non-payment of rent, 15% rent enhancement every two years - The court upheld the validity of clause 4 and 13 of the allotment letter, stating that the petitioner, despite being visually impaired, cannot challenge the clauses after accepting the allotment and taking possession. The court found the penalty clause reasonable and upheld the authority's right to review and enhance the rent, dismissing the petitioner's claim for parity with other allotments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a visually impaired person, challenged the penalty and rent enhancement clauses in the allotment letter for shops 6, 7, and 8, claiming inability to notice the clauses at the time of allotment. The petitioner defaulted in rent payment and filed a representation, which was rejected by the authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the penalty and rent enhancement clauses, and rejecting the petitioner's claim for parity with other allotments. The court found no arbitrariness or unfairness in the impugned order or action of the respondents.
Issues: Validity of penalty and rent enhancement clauses, petitioner's claim for parity with other allotments, authority's right to review and enhance rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner, despite being visually impaired, cannot challenge the clauses after accepting the allotment and taking possession. The penalty clause for non-payment of rent is reasonable, and the authority has the right to review and enhance the rent. No parity can be claimed by the petitioner vis-à-vis the allotments made at an earlier time.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
Heard Ms. Pooja Kumari, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Ramit Satender, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner for quashing the order issued vide memo no.09/MD/Cell dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Managing Director, Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority which in turn has been passed pursuant to order dated 17.09.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.6347 of 2012, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged clause 4 and 13 of allotment letter dated 22.08.1998.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:
(a) That the petitioner is a handicapped person and is self-employed by being a manufacturer of steel almirah and table etc.
(b) A notice inviting tender was issued by the respondents for allotment of shops on rent basis and pursuant to that tender, the petitioner duly participated and applied for allotment of shop nos.6, 7 and 8 by a single tender.
(c) The petitioner became a successful bidder and thereafter, the petitioner was allotted shop nos.6, 7 and 8 on rent basis at the rate of Rs.5,550/- per month vide letter no.1794 dated 22.08.1998.
(d) In clause no.4 of the allotment letter there is a specific provision that in case the rent is not paid within the specific time, a penalty of 15% per annum or the bank rate whichever is higher, will be chargeable on the default portion of the rent. In clause-13, there is a specific provision that the respondent-authority will be entitled to refix the rent from time to time and there is a specific provision that after every two years, there will be a minimum enhancement of 15% which will be payable by the petitioner.
(e) Pursuant to the allotment letter, the petitioner was given possession of the shops.
(f) As the petitioner is visually impaired, therefore at the time of issuance of allotment letter the petitioner could not notice clause-4 and clause-13 of the allotment letter, which provided for 15% penal interest for non-payment of rent and also for 15% enhancement of rent after every two years from the date of allotment.
(g) As the petitioner could not notice the aforesaid two clauses, the petitioner kept on paying rent as it was originally fixed vide the allotment letter and accordingly, the petitioner defaulted in making payment of rent in terms of clause nos.4 and 13 of the allotment letter. He submits that as mentioned in paragraph no.12 of the writ petition, the rent was regularly paid till the year, 2007.
(h) The shop nos.6 and 7 were not capable of being used by the petitioner as the petitioner was not able to open its shutter on account of some more construction in front of shop nos.6 and 7.
(i) The petitioner filed a representation dated 10.07.2007, wherein the petitioner had raised his grievance and when the grievance of the petitioner was not decided by the respondents, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.6347 of 2012 which was disposed of by the order dated 17.09.2013 with a direction upon the Managing Director of the respondent- Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority to dispose of the representation of the petitioner.
(j) Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority, which was disposed of vide impugned order dated 24.08.2015 as contained in Annexure-15 to the writ petition whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is guided by the terms and conditions of the allotment and so far as the grievance regarding shop nos.6 and 7 is concerned, it was said that the three shops i.e. shop nos.6, 7 and 8 were allotted to the petitioner by way of single tender.
(k) The petitioner submits that he has annexed certain orders of allotment as contained in Annexure-16 Series issued as back as on 06.02.1980, 18.12.1979 and 17.05.1980 to show that there is no such similar clause so fa
