Mainoddin Kasimsab Shaikh vs. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioners, Mohammadkhan Amirkhan Pathan and others, filed multiple writ petitions challenging notices issued by the Respondent-Corporation demanding rent for premises they occupied. They also challenged the orders passed by the District Judge-4, Latur, which dismissed their appeals against these notices. The Petitioners argued that no rent agreement was executed, and the procedure under Section 81(C) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act was not followed, with bills not being issued as per Section 81(B). They contended that the Corporation could not demand rent without an agreement or authorization, especially for non-permanent allotments. The Appellate Court, while acknowledging the absence of a rent agreement, dismissed the appeals solely on the ground of the Petitioners' occupation of the premises.
Held
The Court held that the absence of a rent agreement does not absolve the Petitioners of their liability to pay rent for occupying the Municipal Corporation's premises. The Court found that the Corporation is obligated to fix rent as per prevailing rates and regulations. It was stated that the Petitioners are bound to pay rent once they occupy the premises. The Court also noted that if the rent is not fixed, it is for the Petitioners to submit an application to the Corporation for fixing the rent, which would then be considered in accordance with the law. Regarding the Appellate Court's orders, the High Court found no perversity, stating that the Appellate Court had considered the submissions of both parties before dismissing the appeals. Similarly, the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation were also found to be without perversity. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petitions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Municipal Corporation can demand rent from the Petitioners in the absence of a formal rent agreement, and if the notices issued are valid without such an agreement. (Question of law) 2. Whether the procedure contemplated under Section 81(C) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, including the issuance of bills as per Section 81(B), was followed by the Respondent-Corporation. (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: - The notices demanding rent are invalid as no rent agreement exists between the parties. - The Corporation failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 81(C) and 81(B) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. - The Appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeals despite acknowledging the absence of a rent agreement, solely based on occupation. - The rent demanded is vague as the State Government has not fixed the rent, and the Municipal Corporation has not decided it. Respondent's Arguments: - The judgment records no specific arguments made by the Respondents regarding the procedural aspects or the validity of the notices beyond the fact of occupation.
Sections Cited
Section 81(B), Section 81(C), Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949
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 Petitioners assail the notice issued by Respondent No.1 and the orders passed by the District Judge-4, Latur, whereby the Appeals filed by the Petitioners came to be dismissed, wherein the Petitioners have challenged the notices asking them to pay rent else proposing consequential action.
Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned Advocate strenuously submitted that the notices were issued by the Respondent – Corporation without there being any rent agreement executed between the parties and, therefore, in absence of any rent agreement, the Corporation ought not to have issued such notices asking the Petitioners 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 bills were not issued as per section 81 (B) of the said Act. He further submits that after issuance of the notices asking the Petitioners to deposit the rent amount, the Petitioners 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 {3} wp12355-21 (modified).doc Respondent- Corporation cannot demand rent. Particularly when it is not a permanent allotment made in favour of the Petitioners, the notices issued by the Corporation itself are 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 petitioners were occupying the premises, the Appellate Court dismissed the Appeals. Therefore, he submits that the notices and the orders passed by the Appellate Court are required to 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 notices issued by the Corporation are vague and therefore, on such vague notices, the Municipal Corporation cannot be permitted to take action against the Petitioners. This was not considered by the Appellate Court and recorded the finding, which is perverse.
Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioners at length. I have gone through the notices issued by the Corporation with the assistance of learned Advocate for the Petitioners. The notices specifically reveal that the Petitioners who are occupying
{4} wp12355-21 (modified).doc the premises have not paid rent. The notices 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 notices, though the rent amount is mentioned therein. Only because rent agreements are not executed between the parties, that ground is not available to the Petitioners by stating that the Petitioners are not supposed to pay rent. As per the policy, the Corporation is supposed to fix the rent as per prevailing rates and regulations and once the Petitioners are occupying the premises of the Municipal Corporation, the Petitioners are bound to pay the rent and only because the rent is not fixed by the State Government and there is no written agreement, the Petitioners cannot escape from the liability of paying the rent. As far as the contention of the Petitioners that the Corporation has not decided the rent, it is for the Petitioners to submit proper application before the Corporation for fixing the rent. If such Application is filed by the Petitioners, the same shall be considered by the Corporation in accordance with law.
After going through the orders passed by the learned Appellate Court, it is clear that the Appellate Court has observed that the notices were issued to the Petitioners asking to pay rent and even the GST amount is also mentioned in the said notices
{5} wp12355-21 (modified).doc and after considering the submissions advanced by the Petitioners and the Corporation, the Appellate Court dismissed the Appeals.
In view thereof, I do not find any perversity in the orders passed by the Appellate Court. I also do not find any perversity in the notices issued by Municipal Corporation. Hence, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE
drp/wp12355-21 (modified).doc
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.