IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 994/2011

1. Smt. Sharayu D/o Ashok Gokhale, aged about 77 years, Occupaton House-hold.

2. Miss Nita D/o Ashok Gokhale, age about 50 years, Occupation – Service.

3. Vinod S/o Ganesh Jog, aged about 75 years, Occupation - Retired.

4. Smt. Prabha Wd/o Anand Jog, aged about 77 years, Occupation - Retired.

5. Uday S/o Wasantrao Saikhedkar, age about 52 years, Occupation - Business.

6. Pramod S/o Ramchandra Kelkar, aged about 48 years, Occupation – Service.

7. Smt. Gauri W/o Sanjay Sohoni, aged about 52 years, Occupation – Household.

8. Shashank S/o Rambhau Hedaoo, aged 53 years, Occupation – Service.

9. Santosh S/o Rambhau Hedaoo, aged about 45 years, Occupation – Service.

10. Smt. Sandhya W/o Suhas Khulkhule, aged about 49 years, Occupation – House-hold.

All residents of Plot No.68, Congress Nagar, Nagpur.

Through their power of Attorney Milind S/o Madhukarrao Kulkarni, aged 45 years, Occupation - Business, Resident of 168, Chhatrapatinagar, Nagpur Tah. & Distt. Nagpur.

11. All India Reporter Private Limited, a Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Congress Nagar, Nagpur through its Managing Director Sumant Widyadhar Chitale, resident of Dhantoli, Nagpur. PETITIONERS -VERSUS-

1. The Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur, through its Commissioner, Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001.

2. The Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001.

3. The Estate Officer, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001. RESPONDENTS __________________________________________________________________________

Shri A.S. Manohar, counsel for the petitioners.

Shri J.B. Kasat, counsel for the respondents.

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND U RMILA JOSHI-PHALKE , JJ. DATE ON WHICH ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD : 23 ^RD JUNE , 202 2 . DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : 05 ^TH AUGUST , 202 2 .

JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

The challenge raised in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the insertion of fresh terms and conditions while renewing lease of land in a manner contrary to the law laid down by this Court. Further challenge is raised to the demand notice issued by the Estate Officer, Nagpur Municipal Corporation demanding transfer fees from the petitioner nos.1 to 10 consequent upon transfer of the leasehold land to the petitioner no.11 as being without any authority of law.

2. It is the case of the petitioner nos.1 to 10 that on 10.07.1935 a permanent lease of Plot no.68 admeasuring 8400 square feet was executed in their favour by the then Municipal Committee of Nagpur. The said lease was thereafter renewed in the year 1964 for a period of thirty years. Though the said lease was liable to be renewed from 01.04.1994 but no steps in that regard were immediately taken. Ultimately, on 02.04.2009 the said lease was renewed for a period of thirty years from 01.04.1994 to 31.03.2024. While renewing that lease the lessor – Municipal Commissioner, City of Nagpur added certain terms and conditions that were not existing in the original lease-deed dated 10.07.1935. Clause (i), (j) and (k) are three of the clauses that were inserted while renewing the said lease and the same read as under:-

“(i). The Lessee shall not assign, transfer, alienate, sub-divide or sub-lease the demised land or any part thereof without the previous consent of the Lessor or such authority as may be appointed for that purpose. The Lessor however reserves its right to grant/refuse such permission and resume the land and the standing structure thereon without payment or any compensation. Provided that in case the Lessor decides to grant permission to assign, transfer, alienate, sub-divide or sub-lease the demised land, it shall do so after recovery of the unearned income fixed as per NMC Rules and Govt. Rules framed from time to time in this behalf.

(j). The Lessee, if without the written consent of the Lessor, assigns,