Sitaram Matolia vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Sitaram Matolia, was granted a lease for Shop No. A-1 in Bilaspur for 30 years, valid until August 20, 2036. The Municipal Corporation decided to demolish the shop for road widening and undertook to rehabilitate the petitioner with a new shop. The petitioner's original lease was cancelled, and he challenged this. A policy decision was made to allot new shops to existing leaseholders for the remaining lease period. The petitioner was allotted Shop No. 2 in a new complex. However, the Municipal Corporation issued a proposal letter for a new lease of only three years with an enhanced rent of Rs. 20,035/- plus GST, operation and maintenance charges of Rs. 2,68,871/-, and a security deposit of Rs. 2,68,871/-. The petitioner deposited the amount under protest and took possession, executing a lease agreement dated August 18, 2025. The petitioner challenged the proposal letter and lease agreement, seeking the original lease period and rent terms.

Held

The Court held that it would not interfere with the contractual terms of the lease period, rent, and other conditions in the agreement dated August 18, 2025, in its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner had consciously entered into this agreement, and the principle of approbate and reprobate applied, preventing them from accepting one part of the transaction while rejecting another. The Court noted that it would not rewrite contractual terms or substitute a different bargain. However, the Court found that the Municipal Corporation had failed to provide essential amenities like electricity and water supply to the allotted shop, rendering it non-functional, while simultaneously demanding rent. The Court directed the Municipal Corporation to provide electricity, water supply, and other basic amenities necessary for carrying on business within four weeks. The Court explicitly stated it had not adjudicated on the petitioner's claim regarding the continuation of the lease until August 20, 2036, the legality of the lease period, or the rent fixation, leaving the petitioner at liberty to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh lease deed for the allotted shop for the remaining period of the original lease (up to August 20, 2036) and to have the rent fixed in accordance with the original lease deed, or alternatively, for the authorities to reconsider the fixation of a reasonable monthly rent under rehabilitation, as per the policy decision dated March 26, 2025? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the interpretation of the policy decision and contractual rights). Petitioner's arguments: The respondents ought to have granted the lease for the unexpired period of the earlier lease as per the policy decision dated March 26, 2025. The rent fixed for the new shop is arbitrary, excessive, and contrary to the original lease terms. The right to livelihood and property are protected under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution, and state instrumentalities must act fairly. Respondents' arguments: The petitioner consciously entered into the subsequent agreement dated August 18, 2025, and accepted possession. The terms of this agreement govern the rights and liabilities. The doctrine of approbate and reprobate applies, as the petitioner accepted the benefits of the agreement. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, should not rewrite contractual terms.