Back
2025 Supreme(Megh) 1
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
I.P. Mukerji, CJ., W. Diengdoh, J.
Kiran Thapa, S/o (L) Bishnu Prasad Thapa – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi
WA No. 44 of 2024 with WA No. 45 of 2024 WA No. 57 of 2024
Decided On : 03-07-2025
Appearance in WA No. 44 of 2024 and WA No. 45 of 2024:
For the Appellant : Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Adv with Mr. S. Sen, Adv Mr. M. U. Ahmed, Adv
For the Respondents: Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with Ms. K. Gurung, Adv. [For R 1 & 2] Mr. S. P. Mahanta, Sr. Adv with Mr. S. Hynniewta, Adv [For R 3 & 4] Mr. N. D. Chullai, AAG with Mr. E. R. Chyne, GA. [For R 5]
Appearance in WA No. 57 of 2024:
For the Appellant : Mr. V. K. Jindal, Sr. Adv with Mr. I. Kharmujai, Adv. Ms. T. Pohlong, Adv.
For the Respondents: Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with Ms. K. Gurung, Adv. [For R 1 & 2] Mr. S. P. Mahanta, Sr. Adv with Mr. S. Hynniewta, Adv. [For R 3 & 4] Mr. N. D. Chullai, AAG with Mr. E. R. Chyne, GA. [For R 5]
Public authorities must adhere to fairness and reasonableness in contractual matters, ensuring transparency in rent determination processes to avoid arbitrary increases.
Headnote:
(A) Ministry of Defence Guidelines - Standard Rent Determination - Demand notices issued for increased rent based on Standard Rent Determination were challenged by lessees claiming arbitrary and erroneous calculations. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petitions, citing adherence to policies and procedures. (Paras 9, 17, 25)
(B) Public Law Principles - Even in contractual relations, public authorities must ensure fairness and reasonableness, avoiding arbitrariness. The court emphasized the need for transparency in valuation methods and the obligation to provide justifications for rental increases. (Paras 18, 20, 25)
Facts of the case:
Lessees challenged demand notices for increased rent from Rs. 3 to Rs. 13,000 per month, asserting the increases were arbitrary and lacked proper justification. The learned judge upheld the Ministry's calculations, stating they complied with established policies.
Findings of Court:
The demand notices were treated as proposed notices, requiring the Ministry to provide a detailed basis for the rent calculations and allow lessees to raise objections.
Issues: The core issues included whether the rent increase was arbitrary and the adequacy of the Ministry's compliance with public law principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the demand notices lacked sufficient detail and transparency, requiring the Ministry to engage with lessees regarding the valuation process to ensure fairness.
Result: Appeals disposed of with directions for further proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of the appeals and background of the rent issue. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. appellants challenge the arbitrary rent increase. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. arguments regarding the legality of the rent demands. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. court's observations on fairness in public authority actions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. court's directive on revised rent notices and payment structure. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. final disposition of the appeals. (Para 30) |
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji)
We have heard three appeals.
2. One, (WA No. 45 of 2024) is by the association of tenants/lessees under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, in Shillong district. The other two (WA No. 44 of 2024 and WA No. 57 of 2024) are by two individual lessees, under this Ministry.
3. In Shillong district there is a large parcel of land which is in the custody of the said Ministry and has been let out to tenants/lessees, for a long period of time spanning more than a century. Periodically, the rent has been revised by the government. Whatever may have been the principle on which this revision was made, up to March, 2022, the rent for about 3,000 square feet (300 square metres) was only Rs. 3 per month.
4. There is a formula by which the market value of a tract of property is determined by this Ministry. It is known as Standard Rent Determination, based on various locational and utilization factors like main road, motorable road, non-motorable road, commercial use, use as petrol pump, cinema hall and so on. Two and half per cent of the market value is taken as the annual value of the property of which 1/12 is the monthly rent.
5. Now, a demand notice dated 17th June, 2022 was issued by the Shillong Cantonment Board the respondent No.3 to Bala Krishna Thapa, occupant of Holding No.49 JB, Sy.No.135/74 Shillong Cantonment claiming an increased amount of rent in advance for the period 1st April, 2022 to December, 2022 on the basis of Standard Rent Determination made by the Ministry. Up to 1st March, 2022, the lease rent paid was Rs. 3/ for the whole property. Under the demand notice from 1st April 2022 to 31st December, 2022 (9 months), Rs. 1,18,823/- rent was demanded as a condition for further extension of the lease. This meant that around Rs. 13000/- per month was all of a sudden claimed as lease rental for the property.
6. Another demand notice addressed to Madan Thapa another member of the association enjoying holding No.37 JB Sy.No.135/88 Shillong Cantonment was handed up to us during the course of hearing of this appeal. As it was very material to the appeal, we did not insist on any formalities for its being admitted on record but accepted it as a subsequent event for our consideration in the appeal. The notice has 20 columns, the last being the total demand w.e.f. 1st April, 2022 to 31st December, 2025 of Rs. 4,74,425.00/-. It appears from that demand that the land rent was calculated at Rs. 1,15,146.00/- from 1st April, 2022 to 31st December, 2022 and increased to Rs. 1,53,528.00/- from 1st January, 2025 to 31st December, 2025. Similar notices were issued to Basanti Pandey of holding No.6 JB Sy.No.135/31.
7. Similar demand notices were sent out to each of the other members of the association and the other appellants. The difference between the amount paid and the amount payable was claimed from each lessee/tenant. Thereafter, for subsequent periods, demand notices claiming increased rent were sent out.
8. This has been challenged by the appellants on the ground that the standard rate has been erroneously and arbitrarily determined and that they are not liable to pay the differential amount of rent.
9. Each of the appellants preferred a writ before a learned single judge of this Court. The learned judge by his judgment and order dated 5th June, 2024 was pleased to dismiss each of the writ petitions.
Hence, these appeals.
The reasons given by the learned ju
