Gajanan Pralhad Dapke vs. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Latur And Antohers
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Gajanan Pralhad Dapke, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation, Latur (Respondent No. 2), demanding rent for premises occupied by him, and a subsequent order by the District Judge-4, Latur, which dismissed his appeal against the notice. The Petitioner argued that no rent agreement existed between him and the Corporation, and therefore, rent could not be demanded. He also contended that the Corporation failed to follow the prescribed procedure under sections 81(B) and 81(C) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and that the notice was vague as the rent amount had not been fixed by the State Government. The Appellate Court, despite acknowledging the absence of a rent agreement, dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of the Petitioner's occupation of the premises.
Held
The Court held that the absence of a rent agreement does not absolve the Petitioner from the liability to pay rent for occupying the Municipal Corporation's premises. The Court reasoned that as per the Corporation's policy, rent is to be fixed based on prevailing rates and regulations, and any occupant is bound to pay rent. The Petitioner's contention that rent was not fixed by the State Government or that there was no written agreement was not a valid ground to escape liability. The Court also noted that the notice, though not a bill, specified the rent amount and indicated non-payment. The Court found no perversity in the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation or the order passed by the Appellate Court, which had dismissed the appeal. The Petitioner was advised to submit a proper application to the Corporation for fixing the rent, which would be considered in accordance with the law. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Municipal Corporation can demand rent from the Petitioner for occupying its premises in the absence of a formal rent agreement, as per the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949? 2. Whether the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation demanding rent, which was not in the form of a bill and allegedly vague due to un-fixed rent, is in accordance with the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the absence of a rent agreement vitiates the demand for rent. He argued that the Corporation failed to follow the procedural requirements of sections 81(B) and 81(C) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, by not issuing a proper bill. Furthermore, he asserted that the notice was vague because the rent had not been fixed by the State Government, making any demand unsustainable. The Petitioner relied on the Appellate Court's observation that no rent agreement existed. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Respondent Corporation. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the Corporation's stance was that occupation of premises necessitates rent payment as per policy, irrespective of a formal agreement or State Government fixation, and that the Petitioner should apply for rent fixation.
Sections Cited
Section 81(B), Section 81(C)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER : Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties.
By way of present Writ Petitions, the Petitioner assail the notice issued by Respondent No.2 and the order passed by the District Judge-4, Latur, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed, wherein the Petitioner has challenged the notice asking him to pay rent else proposing consequential action.
Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned Advocate strenuously submitted that the notice was issued by the Respondent – Corporation without there being any rent agreement executed between the 2026:BHC-AUG:6326
{2} 24-WP-7181-2020.doc parties and, therefore, in absence of any rent agreement, the Corporation ought not to have issued such notice asking the Petitioner to pay rent. He further submits that the procedure as contemplated under section 81 (C) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, was not followed and bill was not issued as per section 81 (B) of the said Act. He further submits that after issuance of the notice asking the Petitioner to deposit the rent amount, the Petitioner immediately challenged the same and it was brought to the notice of the Appellate Court that in absence of any rent agreement or any authorization to that effect, the Respondent - Corporation cannot demand rent. Particularly when it is not a permanent allotment made in favour of the Petitioner, the notice issued by the Corporation itself is not in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. He further submits that the Appellate Court though observed that admittedly there is no rent agreement but only on the ground that the Petitioner was occupying the premises, the Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal. Therefore, he submits that the notice and the order passed by the Appellate Court is required to {3} 24-WP-7181-2020.doc be set aside. He further submits that as far as the proposal pending before the State Government for fixing of the rent is concerned, the State Government has not decided the same. He further submits that as the Municipal Corporation has not fixed the rent, therefore, the notice issued by the Corporation is vague and therefore, on such vague notices, the Municipal Corporation cannot be permitted to take action against the Petitioner. This was not considered by the Appellate Court and recorded the finding, which is perverse.
Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner at length. I have gone through the notice issued by the Corporation with the assistance of learned Advocate for the Petitioner. The notice specifically reveals that the Petitioner who is occupying the premises has not paid rent. The notice did not mention the period for which rent was demanded and the same was not in the form of Bill but in the form of simple notice, though the rent amount is mentioned therein. Only because rent agreement is not executed between the parties, that ground is not available to the Petitioner by stating that the Petitioner is not supposed to {4} 24-WP-7181-2020.doc pay rent. As per the policy, the Corporation is supposed to fix the rent as per prevailing rates and regulations and once the Petitioner is occupying the premises of the Municipal Corporation, the Petitioner is bound to pay the rent and only because the rent is not fixed by the State Government and there is no written agreement, the Petitioner cannot escape from the liability of paying the rent. As far as the contention of the Petitioner that the Corporation has not decided the rent, it is for the Petitioner to submit proper application before the Corporation for fixing the rent. If such Application is filed by the Petitioner, the same shall be considered by the Corporation in accordance with law.
After going through the order passed by the learned Appellate Court, it is clear that the Appellate Court has observed that the notice was issued to the Petitioner asking to pay rent and even the GST amount is also mentioned in the said notice and after considering the submissions advanced by the Petitioner and the Corporation, the Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal.
{5} 24-WP-7181-2020.doc
In view thereof, I do not find any perversity in the order passed by the Appellate Court. I also do not find any perversity in the notice issued by Municipal Corporation. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Sameer
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.