Bharat Lal Dewangan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1349 of 2018 Bharat Lal Dewangan S/o Late Shri Dasrath Lal Dewangan, Aged About 50 Years Presently Carrying Business At Shop No. 21 Geetanjali Bhawan, Old Bus Stand Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, P. S. Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Municipal Corporation Korba, Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

3. Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Alok Tiwari, Advocate For State :

Shri S.Majid Ali, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents 2 and 3 :

Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate on advance copy Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 17/05/2018 The challenge in the present writ petition is to impugned notice seeking recovery of arrears of rent of the shop, which was in possession of the petitioner during the lease period from 1983 to 2013. In addition, the relief also is for a direction to the respondents to renew the lease, in favour of the petitioner which by efflux of time, has expired.

2.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already made a representation, which is pending consideration with the respondents, but without deciding the said representation, the respondents have refused renewal of the lease deed, till the petitioner deposit the enhanced claim of the arrears of rent.

3.

At this juncture, the counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3 makes a submission that he has been instructed by the authorities concerned that since the representation of the petitioner is pending, the authorities shall take a decision on the representations so filed by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner expresses his anxiety in respect of the arrears of rent claimed by the respondents. 4.

On the aforesaid submissions made by the counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3, this Court is not inclined to keep the writ petition pending and this petition stands disposed off giving a liberty to the petitioner to file an additional representation, if he so desires, within a period 30 days from today taking all those legal grounds, which the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition and on the said representation, so made, the respondent authorities would deliberate and take a decision objectively deciding the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation. 5.

Till the representation is decided by the respondents No.2 & 3, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents for recovery of the alleged arrears of rent for the period from 1983 to 2013.

6.

The authorities may also consider the claim of renewal in the light of the clauses which are there in the first lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner. 7.

The writ petition thus stands disposed off.

SD/- Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Deepti