IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.886 of 2008 Date of Decision : October 26, 2010. Judhiya Ram and others .....Petitioners versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Deepak Thapar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioners are in occupation of certain booths in the Punchayat Complex, Village Buterla, U.T. Chandigarh. They are aggrieved by the decision of the Municipal Corporation, U.T.Chandigarh whereby the monthly rent of each booth has been enhanced to Rs.4693/-. According to the petitioners, it tantamounts to 300% increase in the monthly rent though this allegation is controverted by the respondents. In their reply-affidavit, the respondent-Corporation has maintained that the rent has been increased taking into consideration the C.W.P.No .886 of 2008 2 parameters laid down in the P.W.D. Manual as well as the rental value assessed by the Corporation in association with the revenue officials. The petitioners on the other hand, submit that the booths are abutting the village and do not have that much potentiality as is claimed by the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that what should be the monthly rent of the booths is a question of fact to be considered and its determination essentially falls within the domain of the respondents. At the same time, it would have been more appropriate for the respondents to keep in mind the interest and view point of the petitioners and other tenants before determining the revised rental value. It is also the case of the petitioners that even the total area of the booths has been wrongly measured by the respondents. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to make a self- explanatory representation to the respondents within a period of three weeks. The respondents are directed to consider the issues that may be raised by the petitioners in their representation and accordingly re-assess the rental value of the subject booths in accordance with law. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receiving the representation from the petitioners. Till then, the interim directions dated 21.1.2008 passed by this Court shall continue to operate. However, after re-assessment of the rental value, the respondents shall be at liberty to take suitable action to get the booths vacated in case the revised/re-assessed C.W.P.No .886 of 2008 3 rent alongwith the revised terms and conditions are not acceptable to the petitioners. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. October 26, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE