SYAMLAL MANDAL Vs. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF DHUBRI
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
The Municipal Board Of Dhubri
Click here to view full judgement.
Thadani, C.J. -
(1.) THIS is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Syamial Mandal, for himself & as Secretary to the Bazar Committee, Dhubri, for a writ against the Municipal Board of Dhubri prohibiting it from realising enhanced rent as demanded by the Board, directing it to withdraw the notice of demand for the enhanced rent & attachment of the movable property of the petitioner & other stall -holders, & to drop the proceedings for enhancement of rent in violation of Section 3, Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act of 1949.
(2.) THE petitioner along with some 74 other persons who have not been made parties to this petition are stall -holders in the Laine Market at Dhubri, the market & the stalls being the property of the Dhubri Municipal Board. According to 8 petitioner, the rents realisable by the Municipal Board from the stall -holders were originally governed by the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act of 1946 (Act III (3) of 1946), which ceased to be in force in 1949. In 1949, the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act (Act XIII (13) 1949) came Into force on 1 -10 -1949, in which discrimination has been made between houses & houses & between landlords & landlords, in that houses belonging to the Provincial or Central Govt. or Local Authorities, have been excluded from the operation of the Act XIII (13) of 1949. If is alleged that the Municipal Board of Dhubri, without any just or sufficient cause, arbitrarily increased the rent payable by the petitioner 5 & other stall -holders in the aforesaid Laine Market, by 40 per cent, to 100 per cent, of the existing rents payable by them; the rent of the petitioner has been enhanced from Rs. 6/12/ - to Rs. 16/ - per month; against the enhancement, the petitioner made a representation to the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Dhubri, but without success; the Deputy Commissioner of Goalpara also rejected the petitioner's request for reconsideration of the case. Likewise the Hon'ble Minister in charge of, Local Self Govt. rejected the petitioner's representation.
(3.) MR . Ghose for the petitioner contends that the provision contained in Clauses (2) & (3) of Section 2, Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act XIII (13) of 1949 tends to infringe the fundamental right of a citizen of India guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, & must be pronounced void.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.