Surinder Paul Singh Alias Surinerpal Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And And Other

Held

The Court held that the revision of the license fee was not arbitrary. Clause 18 of the license agreement explicitly allowed the Railway Administration to enhance the fee at its sole discretion, with a 15-day notice. The petitioner failed to provide material to compare the shop in question with other premises auctioned at lower rates, considering factors like size, situation, and amenities. The Court found that the petitioner had always been in arrears of license fee. It was observed that the respondents, as owners of public premises, are entitled to use them productively and cannot be compelled to continue with licensees paying below market rates, which would benefit individuals at the cost of the public exchequer. The Court cited Suresh Chand Gupta (supra) and D.H. Maniar and Others (supra). The eviction order and dismissal of appeal were upheld. However, a four-month grace period was granted for the petitioner to vacate the premises.

Facts

The petitioner, Surinder Paul Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an eviction order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the Estate Officer, Diesel Locomotive Modernisation Works, Patiala, and a subsequent order dated 08.01.2024 by the Appellate Authority dismissing his appeal. The petitioner was a licensee of a shop in the DMW Complex, Patiala, under an agreement with the Union of India/Chief Engineer, Diesel Component Works. The dispute arose when the license fee was revised from Rs. 2,210/- per month to Rs. 8002.26/- plus GST per month. The petitioner had filed a civil suit challenging this revision, which was pending. Eviction proceedings were initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

Key Issues

1. Whether the revision of license fee/occupation fee from Rs. 2,210/- p.m. to Rs. 8002.26/- plus GST per month is arbitrary and exorbitant, violating the principles of natural justice, and whether the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, are applicable. Petitioner's arguments: The authorities erred in passing the eviction order without considering the pending civil suit challenging the arbitrary rent revision. The increase in license fee was arbitrary, and the Estate Officer failed to provide an opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice. The 1971 Act is not applicable. Respondents' arguments: The 1971 Act is applicable as the shop is a public premise. The petitioner was aware of the proceedings and intentionally did not appear. The petitioner, as a licensee, cannot dictate terms regarding license fee, which has been reasonably enhanced considering market rent. The petitioner has consistently been in arrears of license fee.