Back
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
Chitra Dey - Appellant
Versus
Shillong Municipal Board - Respondent
WP(C) Nos. 210, 211, 213, 214/2010 and 164, 165/2012
Decided On : 19-08-2014
LICENCE - MUNICIPAL PROPERTY - LEASE/LICENCE - REVOCATION - PUBLIC POLICY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - PUBLIC INTEREST - MEGHALAYA MUNICIPAL ACT, 1973 - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - INDIAN EASEMENTS ACT, 1882 - REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - MEGHALAYA URBAN AREAS RENT CONTROL ACT, 1972 - Held, the agreements between the parties are not lease deeds but licences. The exclusive possessions of the said Stalls were never handed over by the SMB to the writ petitioners and the right under the said agreements are not hereditable. The petitioners have no protection under the Meghalaya Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The policy decision of the respondents is not interfered with as it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners had entered into agreements with the Shillong Municipal Board (SMB) for running their businesses on the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreements in the Stalls belonging to the SMB. The writ petitioners are not paying the rents/fees for occupying the said stalls to the SMB for the last many years. The writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 164/2012 and WP(C) No. 165/2012, had already been evicted in consequence of the impugned notice dated 02.07.2010 and the prayer sought for in those two writ petitions i.e. WP(C) No. 164/2012 and WP(C) No. 165/2012 are "issue Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus be not issue directing the respondents to forthwith restore the possessions of the stalls with the petitioners."
Finding of the Court:
The agreements between the parties are not lease deeds but licences. The exclusive possessions of the said Stalls were never handed over by the SMB to the writ petitioners and the right under the said agreements are not hereditable. The petitioners have no protection under the Meghalaya Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The policy decision of the respondents is not interfered with as it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved.
Issues: Whether the agreements between the parties are lease deeds or licences?
Ratio Decidendi: The crucial test for distinction between the lease and licence is if under the document a party gets exclusive possession of the property. The agreements between the parties are not lease deeds but licences. The exclusive possessions of the said Stalls were never handed over by the SMB to the writ petitioners and the right under the said agreements are not hereditable. The petitioners have no protection under the Meghalaya Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The policy decision of the respondents is not interfered with as it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved.
Final Decision: The writ petitions are dismissed. The writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 210/2010, WP(C) No. 211/2010, WP(C) No. 213/2010 and WP(C) No. 214/2010 are to handover the unencumbered possessions of the stalls mentioned above to the respondent No. 1-SMB in pursuance of the impugned letter/notice dated 02.07.2010 within a reasonable time of three weeks' from the date fixed by the SMB pursuance to this common judgment and order.
Judgment
T. Nandakumar Singh, Actg. C.J.1. Heard Mr. K Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 & 2 and Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
2. These writ petitions, assailing the eviction notices issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Shillong Municipal Board, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya, having the same date i.e. 02.07.2010 to each of the writ petitioners for eviction from the Stalls of the Shillong Municipal Board occupied by them for development purposes, are jointly heard for disposal by a common judgment and order.
3. When the hearing of these writ petitions are concluded, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a possibility of amicable settlement of the disputes between the parties in the present writ petitions and accordingly, prayed for some weeks' time for such amicable settlement. This Court allowed the learned counsel for the petitioners to inform the Court the result of the endeavour made by the parties for settlement of the disputes amongst themselves amicably any time and accordingly, the common judgment of these cases was kept reserved for few weeks, so that the parties may have the chance for amicable settlement. In spite of reserving the judgment for 1 1/2 months, the parties are not informing the Court about the amicable settlement, if there be any; in such circumstances, the Court has no alternative but to decide these writ petitions on merit and accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
4. The writ petitioners i.e. (i) Smit. Chitra Dey of WP(C) No. 210/2010, (ii) Smti. Jayshree Ghosal of WP(C) No. 211/2010, (iii) Madhu Sudhan Paul of WP(C) No. 213/2010, (iv) Shri. Pradip Datta of WP(C) No. 214/2010, (v) Shri. Karuna Sindhu Ghosh of WP(C) No. 164/2012 and (vi) Shri. Gopinath Saha of WP(C) No. 165/2012, had entered into agreements i.e. (i) agreement dated 18.03.1999, (ii) agreement dated 09.01.1991, (iii) agreement dated 25.03.1999, (iv) agreement dated 10.01.1991, (v) agreement dated 03.09.1983 and (vi) agreement dated 31.07.1991 respectively with the Shillong Municipal Board (for short 'SMB') for running their businesses on the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreements in the Stalls i.e. (i) Stall No. 277 (1st Floor, 140 sq. ft.), (ii) Stall No. 299 (1st floor, 150 sq. ft.), (iii) Stall No. 234 (160 sq. ft.), (iv) Stall No. 272 (1st floor, 150 sq. ft.), (v) Stall No. 242 (1st Floor, 100 sq. ft.), and (vi) 105 sq. ft. at the First Floor at the Jail Road respectively. The writ petitioners are not paying the rents/fees for occupying the said stalls to the SMB for the last many years and the writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 210/2010, WP(C) No. 211/2010, WP(C) No. 213/2010 and WP(C) No. 214/2010 are occupying the said stalls without paying the rents/fees i.e. in respect of writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 210/2010, last payment of rent/fee for occupying the stall was on 27.03.2009, in respect of writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 211/2010, last payment of rent/fee for occupying the stall was in the month of March, 2008, in respect of writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 213/2010, last payment of rent/fee for occupying the stall was on 09.04.2009 and in respect of writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 214/2010, last payment of rent/fee for occupying the stall was on 08.07.2010. The writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 164/2012 and WP(C) No. 165/2012 are the habitual defaulters in payments of rents/fees and they also did not pay rents/fees before they were evicted.
The writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 164/2012 and WP(C) No. 165/2012, had already been evicted in consequence of the impugned notice dated 02.07.2010 and the prayer sought for in those two writ petitions i.e. WP(C) No. 164/2012 and WP(C) No. 165/2012 are "issue Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus be not issue directing the respondents to forthwith restore the possessions of
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
