Harsh Mann vs. Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam LTD

Facts

The petitioner, Harsh Mann, entered into a lease agreement with respondent no. 2 for operating a tourist accommodation house from May 1, 2018, to March 31, 2023, at an annual rent of Rs. 2,32,000/- plus GST. Following a natural calamity in July 2018, which damaged the access road and bridge, the petitioner's business was severely affected, preventing him from operating the guest-house and paying rent. The respondents issued letters demanding pending rent, and on July 31, 2023, respondent no. 1 requested the District Magistrate to recover Rs. 11,34,234/- from the petitioner. A recovery citation for Rs. 11,34,234/- was subsequently issued. The petitioner made representations highlighting the impact of the natural calamity, but these were not heeded. The petitioner, present in court, stated readiness to pay Rs. 6,00,000/- within one month and requested sympathetic consideration for reducing the outstanding rent amount.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the guest-house was leased to the petitioner and that if it could not be run due to a natural calamity, the respondent department should have considered the petitioner's case sympathetically. The petitioner, present in court, stated his readiness to pay Rs. 6,00,000/- within one month and requested sympathetic consideration for reducing the rent amount due to the natural calamity. The respondents' counsel fairly submitted that upon deposit of Rs. 6,00,000/- within one month, the department would consider the petitioner's claim sympathetically. Consequently, the Court directed that after taking into consideration all aspects, including the impact of the natural calamity since July 2018, the respondent department would take a decision as per law regarding the amount of rent to be deposited by the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Court did not explicitly quash the order dated 31.07.2023 or quash the recovery citation, but rather directed a sympathetic consideration and a decision on the rent amount post-payment of a partial sum.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent department should be directed not to take coercive measures against the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 11,34,232/- in view of the order dated 31.07.2023, and whether the said order dated 31.07.2023 issued by respondent no. 1 is liable to be quashed. (This issue is framed based on the reliefs sought by the petitioner). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the natural calamity in July 2018 severely impacted his business, making it impossible to run the guest-house and pay rent. He argued that his representations regarding the calamity were ignored. He also stated his readiness to pay Rs. 6,00,000/- and sought a direction for the respondent department to sympathetically consider reducing the outstanding rent amount. Respondents' arguments: Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, through Mr. Sandeep Kothari, submitted that the petitioner had given an undertaking on July 30, 2019, acknowledging his liability to pay the remaining rent within two months. Mr. Kothari fairly submitted that if the petitioner deposits Rs. 6,00,000/- within one month, the department will consider the petitioner's claim sympathetically.