THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1336 of 2010 Date:30.12.2014 Between:
State Bank of India rep by its Chief Manager (Admn.) Region-I, Zonal Officer, Visakhapatnam.
. Petitioner.
AND A.P.S.R.T.C. rep by Assistant Traffic Manager, D.B.S. Complex, Visakhapatnam and another.
....Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1336 of 2010 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against orders dated 25-01- 2010 in A.S.No.170/2009 on the file of Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam whereunder order dated 18-06-2009 in E.C.No.01/2008 on the file of Estate Officer, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Appellant herein took the premises belonging to respondent herein on lease in the year 1984 and the rent was fixed from time to time and finally according to respondent herein, the lease was extended on 01-04-2000 and expired by 31-03-2003 and the rent was at Rs.5.04 paisa per square feet and thereafter, a proposal was sent by respondent for continuation of tenancy at the enhanced rent of 30% for which petitioner herein sought certain clarification from its head office, but continued in possession till 31-03- 2005 by paying earlier rent only and therefore, the respondent claimed enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.6.55 paisa per square feet and also for damages on the ground that the revision petitioner is in authorised occupation of the premises. The revision petitioner resisted the claim and according to revision petitioner, the lease was again renewed on 01-04-2000 for a period of five years, which was expired on 31-03-2005 on a rent of Rs.05.04 paisa per square feet and the claim of the respondent herein that the lease ended by 31-03-2003 was not correct and the claim of respondent herein at the increased rate of Rs.6.55 paisa per square feet is absolutely incorrect and there was no concluded contract for payment of 30% enhancement as contended by the respondent herein and the order of the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority is not correct.
3. Heard arguments of both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that both the lower authority and also appellate authority have erred in concluding that there is an enhancement of rent of 30% over Rs.5.04 paisa per square feet. He submitted that Estate Officer has no power or jurisdiction to fix the rent under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1968 and Section 7 of the Act empowers only to recover the agreed rent payable, if it is not paid. He submitted that the Estate Officer passed order dated 18-06- 2009 without jurisdiction and the Appellate Authority has simply confirmed the order without any valid grounds. He submitted that at the time of renewal of lease on 01-04-2000, the agreement was it should be extended by five years ending by 31-03-2005 and the revision petitioner herein in terms of the same, vacated the premises in April, 2005 and at the time of vacating the premises, respondent herein has not raised any objection, as such the petition filed by the respondent before the Estate Officer is not maintainable. He submitted that there is no concluded contract between the parties to recover rent at the rate of Rs.6.55 paisa from 01- 04-2003, therefore, the orders of the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority are completely illegal.
5. On the other hand, Advocate for first respondent submitted that though revision petitioner contended that the lease was extended from 01-04-2000 to 31-03-2005, there is no such agreement and the correspondence between the parties would clearly disclose that lease extended on 01-04- 2000 was expired by 31-03-2003 and through a letter under Ex.A2, the revision petitioner was informed that the extended period is going to be expired by 31-03-2003 and as per Ex.A5, the petitioner herein expressed its intention that they intend to continue till 31-03-2005 and when the first respondent informed the revision petitioner that such continuation should be only on 30% of increase from 01-04-2003 for that, there was no objection from the revision petitioner, except saying that they would consult their head office and thereafter, there was no communication from the revision petitioner disputing the proposal, therefore, it has to be treated that there is a deemed consent from the revision petitioner and both the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority rightly discarded plea of the revision petitioner. He submitted that though Estate Officer awarded damages of Rs.5,07,084/-, the same was set aside by the appellate authority only confining for the arrears at the rate of 30% above the admitted rate of Rs.5.04 per square feet. He submitted that there are no grounds to interference with the concurrent findings.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the order of the Court below is proper, legal and correct?
7. Point:- Admittedly, the premises belong to first respondent herein and the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 is applicable to the property, which was in occupation of revision petitioner herein. One of the objection of the revision petitioner is that under Section 7 of the said Act, Estate Officer has no power to determine quantum of rent, but here as seen from the impugned orders, the Estate Officer has not fixed any rent on his own, but only accepted the claim of the first respondent herein basing on the letter correspondence between the parties concerning lease terms and rate of rent or licence fee. From the facts, it is clear that the revision petitioner herein continued in the premises under the original agreement of lease, therefore, till he vacate the premises, he is bound to pay licence fee or rent. Though revision petitioner contended that the tenure was extended by another five years on 01-04-2000, the same cannot be accepted in view of Ex.A4 through which, the first respondent herein informed the revision petitioner that the term agreed on 01-04-2000 was only for three years and through that document, the revision petitioner was called upon to accept the proposal for enhancement of licence fee for which revision petitioner replied that they intend to continue and that the proposal of the first respondent for enhancement was placed before their head office for consideration. But the revision petitioner did not specifically informed first respondent disputing or denying the proposal for enhancement and without any objection, continued till the end of March, 2005 and vacated the premises only in April, 2005. So as rightly pointed out by Advocate for first respondent, it has to be treated that there is a deemed consent as petitioner continued in the premises, without challenging the proposal for enhancement. After receipt of Ex.A7-notice, the revision petitioner continued in the premises and at no point of time, denied its liability to pay licence fee at the enhanced rate or denied the demand made by the first respondent herein for enhancement. Though the revision petitioner contended that the earlier enhancement was only 20% and the demand for enhancement for 30% is contrary to the circular instructions of the Corporation, there is no supporting material for the said contention. When the revision petitioner contended that the renewal on 01-04-2000 was for a period of five years, it is its burden to prove the same by producing necessary evidence either documentary or oral. Except the self-serving contention of the revision petitioner, there is no material to show that the renewal on 01-04-2000 was for the period of five years. It has not even produced any documentary proof to show that earlier renewals from 1984 are for a period of five years on each occasion. In the absence of any such material, the contention of the revision petitioner that he is only liable to pay at the rate of Rs.5.04 paisa per square feet cannot be accepted. From the correspondence, it is clear that the revision petitioner was in permissive possession after 31-03-2003 till it vacated the premises.
8. On a scrutiny of the entire material, I am of the considered view, that the orders of the Estate Officer and Appellate Authority are quite legal and there is no lack of jurisdiction. Both Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority have rightly appreciated the material and that there is no material irregularity in both the orders.
9. For these reasons, it is held that there are no grounds to interfere with the orders of the appellate authority as it is a well reasoned order, which does not suffer from any material irregularity.
10. Hence, revision is dismissed but under the circumstances without costs.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:30.12.2014 mrb