International Building and Furnishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.

1. Petitioner of above captioned two petitions is a tenant in respect of area admeasuring 801 sq ft. at the first floor of Jeewan Bharti Building, 24, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and also in an area admeasuring 891 sq. ft. at the fifth floor of the aforesaid building under the respondent, by virtue of.[7] -P two separate lease deeds executed on27.06.2000 atarental of T15/- per sq. ft. and < 6l- per sq. ft. respectively.

2. After expiring of the lease of the afore-noted subject premises on 3I.03.20L0, petitioner was invited by the respondent in the rent revision meetings on various occasions but the revision of rent could not be finalized as petitioner was offering 100% enhancement of the rental, whereas the respondent was demanding revision of rent to <160/- per sq. ft. Show cause notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioner as to why its tenancy in the subject premises be not terminated and in response thereto petitioner had offered 10% enhancement of the rent which was not acceptable to the respondent who vide impugned notice of 09.02.2012 had terminated petitioner's tenancy in the subject premises.

3. Since the challenge to the aforesaid impugned Notice terminating the tenancy of the petitioner in the afore-noted subject premises is on identical grounds, therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ' 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned notice (Annexure P-1) stands vitiated because inability of the petitioner to pay exorbitant rent of <160/- per sq. ft. cannot be made the basis to evict the petitioner from the subject premises as the petitioner is a genuine tenant. o ! w.P.[c) 7716 / 20L[2] & 1200 /2012 PageZ (' Petitioner's counsel strongly relies upon Guidelines of the year 2002 to prevent arbitrary use of powers to evict genuine tenants.fro* public premises, to contend that these Guidelines are of statutory character which prohibits the landlords not to resort to evict the tenants by invoking The Public Premises (Eviction of (Inauthorized Occupants) Act, I97I with a commercial motive and the impugned Notice (Annexure P-1) being in contravention of the aforesaid statutory Guidelines, is liable to be quashed.

5. The sole basis to challenge impugned Notice is the violation of the aforesaid mandatory Guidelines of the year 2002 and so vide order of 26'h March, 20I[2],I had dispensed with the requirement of filing counter affidavit as it was stated by respondent's counsel that no counter affidavit is required to be filed. Modification of the aforesaid order is sought by the petitioner as it is stated by the petitioner's counsel that on facts and on the legal status of the aforesaid Guidelines, counter by the respondents is required for complete adjudication of this matter.

6. Along-with the additional affidavit of 27.04.2012, the petitioner has filed copy of RTI information of Muy, 2007 to show that the Guidelines of the year 2002 are the guiding factors which have to be followed in eviction matters under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 197I

7. Respondent has chosen not to file counter because according to the respondent's counsel, this petition is premature. In the facts and circumstances of this case, respondent cannot be compelled to file the counter and so no case for modification of order of 26th March, 2Ol[2] is made out.

8. To cite an instance of respondent letting out premises on the rear side of ground floor in the building in question to third party @<55/- per sq. ft. in the year 2008, amendment of the writ petition is sought by the petitioner w.P.(c) 7L76 / 20]-2 & L200 / 2012 Page 3 T which is uncalled for, as what is required to be determined herein is as to whether the petitioner ought to be relegated to avail of the statutory remedy i.e. to contest its eviction before the Estate Officer in proceedings under The Pubtic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, I97l or should the petitioner be permitted to invoke the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. In the aforesaid context, it would be relevant to highlight the pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Bosrd v. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Ors. JT 1995 (8) S.C. 331, which are as under:-

w.P.(c) 1176I 2012 & 7200 I 2072 Page 4 -"( [,O

10. In a recent decision in LPA No.977/2011 "Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Damyanti Vermo" rendered on 23'd March, 2012, a Division Bench of this Court has held that aforesaid Guidelines of the year 2002 are not of binding nature. At the hearing, it was asserted by petitioner's counsel that orders have been reserved in the petition seeking review of the aforesaid Division Bench decision. 1 1. Apart from the binding character of the aforesaid Guidelines of the year 2002, question of fact arise in this petition. That is to say, what would be the reasonable periodic revision of the rent cannot be answered in this petition. Similarly, it is not sufficient to merely allege discrimination as evidence is required to be led in the eviction proceedings regarding the cited instance being comparable with the subject premises.

12. In the aforesaid view of this matter, it is considered appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 to assail the impugned Termination Notice (Annexure P-1) on merits as well as on the ground of it being in violation of the Guidelines of the year 2002, as the question of binding character of these Guidelines is said to be subjudice.

13. While refraining to comment upon the validity of the impugned Termination Notice (Annxure P-1), these petitions are disposed of with' liberty to the petitioner to assail the impugned Termination Notice (Annexure P-1) as and when eviction proceedings are initiated against the petitioner.

14. Both the writ petitions as well disposed of as such. as the pending applications are 4(SUNIL GAUR)

JUDGE MAY 01,2012 mm/rekha/rs