Ibrahim Hasansab Sayyed vs. The Commissioner 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. The Petitioners also challenged the orders passed by the District Judge-4, Latur, which dismissed their appeals against these notices. The core of the dispute was that the notices were issued without a formal rent agreement, and the Petitioners argued that the Corporation had not followed the prescribed procedure under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, including proper billing. The Appellate Court, despite acknowledging the absence of a rent agreement, dismissed the appeals solely on the ground that the Petitioners were occupying the premises.
Held
The Court held that the absence of a formal rent agreement does not absolve the Petitioners from the liability to pay rent for occupying the Municipal Corporation's premises. The Court found that the Corporation's policy requires fixing rent as per prevailing rates and regulations, and occupants are bound to pay. The Court did not find any perversity in the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation, stating that while rent agreements were not executed, the Petitioners were occupying the premises and were therefore liable to pay rent. The Court also found no perversity in the orders passed by the Appellate Court, which had dismissed the appeals. The Court noted that the notices mentioned the rent amount and even the GST amount. The Court directed that if the Petitioners wished to have the rent fixed, they should submit a proper application to the Corporation, which would be considered in accordance with the law. The Court dismissed the writ petitions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Respondent-Corporation can demand rent from the Petitioners in the absence of a formal rent agreement, and if the notices issued are valid under Section 81(C) and Section 81(B) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioners contended that the Corporation's notices demanding rent were invalid because no rent agreement was executed. They argued that the Corporation failed to follow the procedural requirements of Section 81(C) and Section 81(B) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, by not issuing proper bills. They further submitted that the notices were vague as the rent had not been fixed by the Municipal Corporation or the State Government, and the Appellate Court's dismissal of their appeals, despite acknowledging the lack of a rent agreement, was perverse. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the Respondent-Corporation regarding the procedural aspects or the validity of the notices. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the Corporation's policy mandates fixing rent as per prevailing rates and regulations, and occupants are bound to pay rent.
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 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.