/’/l/ 72% %//G# CUd/RT OF !}iz?D/¥Y24 P/MDI-L3W :W JA324LPUR gm A/o. __ s63 05$ 7W6: ff‘PPL / OWWS PET / 7 / O/VERS 7 . Bhamag, 5/0 Laie {I’mecl $aw Thanma/za agad 35 gearm, ALP. Me/zia , 5/0 Laie 5hgam£a£ Mahia, agad aéawé 64‘ yeamé. JA/wk JaLAwai , $70 ' Gawu; Shankcm JaLAwa£, aged aéaui 4‘3 yaahA, 5ha£nav£a£ Namdea, 3/0 Rik/ulna”: Namdeo, a ged 35 gaww. Lakbhman [4111, .570 15’ha/a/zavila£ Hamclao, aged 46 yeah!” Enzi. Deepije'a Sj‘ngh W/o 5LL606UL' 5LngfL, agad abaui 2c? geanm .WLgam Lal;, r 5/0 Lee£adhan z4gga/Lwai, agged 55 yean’o, Jei/Lmal Jain, k 3/0 Xaia‘ Jognam Jculn, aged 45 geakA. ‘ A/cm‘eé/L JaLn, 5/0 {‘lemLc/uznd Jain, aged 25 geazw. SLLAhii I4ggnawai, 5/0 KaA/LL i$gzgaawa.£, aged 37 yea/mp Pizavaen Ehai, 5/0 Jawaaa glmi, aged 27 yewm. Manna Muiwanxl, 5/0 Ra/Landmal, agad IQLM aim aeAidenca o,{ Vibiage Gandcul, Pandanxla', 7e/Lm‘l : Chluulkhaclam Biwizu‘ci Ravinandg . n c , a P. ‘<'-. 1.. VA ia Siaig aiZ MJ’. fr'maugh 5ecaeicuzg, Dapanimeni 0,4 Loacmé Ee’é Govenrzmani, Govio‘ a}: Madwa gnaw/L, VmMaéh Wigwam, Bhapcd, \ K mm.) g 2. r (Vagcm' Pa/mncwai, f GandaL, axiazii. Ragnandgaan Thnougz/i Chié,£ MunLcLpcil ‘ 07L¥1Lce2u Gandai. r DLAimlc/‘t Razinandgaonc W /V-24PPL/ {KW/“E /?E5PO‘/VBEA/75 ¥ fgWf/OW df/VDERVz€/?T/€LE 226,0FCM/377N/7/O/1/ OF //VD/7f[ ' ‘ ‘m‘ A ’ z‘E/s V‘Aiaie‘d in ihe Jahmwumawu“ L.‘ . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 563 0f 1996 I APPLICANTS 1 Dhanraj & Others. PETITIONERS VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS State 0f M.P. & Another. RESPONDENTS PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. ‘ ' Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1. ORDER jORALt (Passed on 24 day of November, 2010) Challenge, in this petition, is to the decision of the Nagar Panchayat, Gandai, whereby the monthly rent of the shops has been determined at the rate of Rs. 150/-, Rs. l75/—, Rs. 225/— and Rs. 250/— in the different wards, on the basis of resolution dated 31.01.1995. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners were allotted concrete sheds/shops by the then Gram Panchayat, Gandai in the year 1983 on payment of monthly rent. In the year 1994, by notification, the Gram Panchayat, Gandai was constituted as Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2/Nagar Panchayat continued to accept the rent as fixed earlier. In the year 1995, a demand notice for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.. 150/-, Rs. 175/—, Rs. 225/- and Rs. 250/— per month, for shops ‘ ‘ situated in different wards, was raised. I 3. Shri Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that increase of monthly rent by 200% to 300% is unauthorized, illegal being contrary to the provisions of section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961. 4. None appears on behalf of the respondent N0. 2, despite service of notice. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. On perusal, it is found that there is no averment in the entire pleadings asto what was the rate fixed and what was the condition for renewal as per the agreement executed when the shed/shops Were allotted to the petitioners in 1983. The various payment receipts (Annexure A/l and A/2) filed by the petitioners do not disclose the monthly rent fixed, but it only shows that various amounts ranging from Rs. 55/— to Rs. 750/- have been received by the Nagar Panchayat. For want of relevant materials viz. the agreement wherein the sheds/shops were allotted to the petitioners on payment of monthly rent which provides for alleged enhancement only at the rate of 15%, it cannot be held that there was any condition as submitted by the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners have also not averred anywhere in the pleadings nor produced any document to show that what was the rent at the time of allotment of shed/shops. Thus, the contention that there was an increase of 200% to 300% is not substantiated. Further contention of Shri Tripathi that it is contrary to the provisions of section 129 of the Act, 1961, is not relevant as section 129 deals with imposition of taxes and fees, which may be prescribed by the State Govemment in this behalf and there is n0 cap on fixation oftax and fee. The issue of enhancement of royalty came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of MP. v. Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Ltd. & Others], wherein the question involved was whether increase in rates of royalty pursuant to the notification to the extent of 400% to 2000% as compared to royalty fixed in 1981, in 1991 was excessive and confiscatory, it was observed that they suffered loss since last hike in the royalty was done in the year 1981 by the Central Government and the rates of royalty fixed before a decade with the passage of time and fall in money value and inflation would naturally become illusory. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the Central Government was competent to fix the royalty and enhance the same on account of several aforestated factors which necessitated enhancement to the above stated extent. Shri Tripathi submits that the ratio laid down in Mahalaxmi Fabrics] would not be applicable to the case on hand as this is not a case of royalty but ofrent. 10. Contention of Shri Tripathi deserves to be rejected on a simple ground that a person competent to fix the rent can also increase the rent having regard to the increase in the value of the property, loss, fall in money value, and inflation after lapse of so many years. Thus increase of rent after 10 years, from any angle, can not be held as excessive. It is well settled that the rent is determined having regard to the value of the property, increase in the market rate and the price index. The petitioner is unable to establish that value of the property has not increased, the price index has not increased and everything was the same as it was 10 years before. Therefore, enhancing the rent to Rs. 150/— onwards, appears to be ‘* (1) scc 642 “MM w W” > WwM/mna 4 %> just and proper. One should not loose sight of the fact that this is not a case of renewal but it is a case of re-determination after about 12 years. It is always for the tenant and lease holders to accept or reject as the impugned order only provides that in mture, their shall be an agreement between the parties only on the condition of payment of Rs. l50/- per month onwards in different wards, as rent. Thus, there is no breach of any legal or other right warranting interference with the order passed by the authorities. ll.- For the reasons and analysis mentioned hereinabove, the petition is bereft ofmerit and is accordingly dismissed. // // l reassessment i.e. t( 5&5h “age Amit ‘