SETHI - (1.) DELAY condoned in SLP(C) Nil/99 (CC 902/99).
(2.) LEAVE granted. Sector 17 is a commercial centre in Chandigarh, the city beautiful of India which is also the capital of Punjab and Haryana, the two most prosperous States of the country. Shopkeepers of this commercial centre are aggrieved of the enhancement of the rent of their leased premises from Rs. 2,671.00 to Rs. 14,000.00 per month which, according to them, is irrational, unwarranted by law and arbitrary being 600 per cent increase. The shops under their occupation are stated to have been initially leased out to them at a paltry rent of Rs. 625.00 with effect from 10/05/1968. Whereas the respondent Union Territory have steadily enhanced the rent from time to time, the appellants herein have unsuccessfully put all types of hurdles conceivable under the present legal system. Almost admitted facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are that the appellants were leased commercial premises in Sector 17 of Chandigarh in or about the years 1963-64. However, formal lease deeds were executed between the Lessor and the lessees in May, 1968 on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 525.00 per mensem in advance by the 19th day of the month for which it fell due. The lease was initially for a period of five years from the date of the grant which could be terminated by the lessor by giving one month's advance notice in writing to the Lessees. The lease was renewable only once for another term of five years with 20 Per Cent increase in the rent reserved under the deed. In the event of the non payment of the rent on the due date or breach or non observance by the Lessee of any of the conditions of the lease deed, it was lawful for the Lessor, notwithstanding the waiver of any previous cause or right for re-entry, to terminate the lease and enter into and upon the building or any part thereof and to re-possess, retain and enjoy the same and in that event the Lessee was not entitled to the refund of lease money or any part thereof or to any compensation whatsoever on account of such resumption. After the expiry of the initial period of 10 years, the rent of the leased premises was increased to Rs. 2,671.00 per month with effect from 1-3-1982. Being aggrieved by the increase of rent, the Lessess filed writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in which their plea was not accepted and a Division Bench of the High Court vide its judgment dated 4/08/1988 held that there was no evidence to show that the enhanced rent was, in any way, unreasonable or arbitrary. The Court further observed, "in fact we had a feeling that this is much lower than the fair payable rent in respect of such premises". However, as by then the Lessees had agreed to pay the enhanced rent with effect from 1/03/1982 till the end of February, 1991, the Court set aside the orders of termination of their leases which had been passed on their failure to pay the enhanced rent. The petitions were disposed of holding : "The result would be that he shall be deemed to continue to be lessee under the Estate Administration. We shall now execute a lease deed agreeing to pay rent as aforesaid. The rent shall be revisable for the period from 1/03/1991 as per the existing rules of the Estate Administration. The arrears for the period of 1/03/1982 till 31/07/1988, shall be paid on or before 30/09/1988 and the rent for the month of August, 1988 shall be paid on or before the 10th of September, 1988 and for the month of September 1988, it shall be paid on or before the 10/10/1988 and for every subsequent month on or before the 10th of each subsequent month."
(3.) AFTER the expiry of the period prescribed by the High Court, the Lessees were allowed to remain in possession but were slapped with a notice on 19/08/1992 intimating them to renew the lease subject to enhancement of rent from Rs. 2,671.00 to Rs. 14,000.00 with effect from 1-3-1992 pending decision of the Chandigarh Administration for the intervening period i.e. 1-3-1991 to 29-2-1992 for the increase of rent at enhanced rates which was intimated to be binding upon the Lessees as and when increased. The Lessees were called upon to renew fresh lease deeds in favour of the respondents containing the terms and conditions detailed therein. Feeling that the enhanced rent was illegal, unfair, arbitrary and uncalled for, the Lessees of the shops in Sector 17 filed various writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. One set of such petitions Nos. 10520-21 of 1996 entitled Dr. Sahib Singh and Sons v. Chandigarh Administration were disposed of vide judgment Annexure P-4 upholding the right of the Union Territory Chandigarh to enhance the rent with appropriate directions needed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Contending that their cases were different than Sahib Singh's matter, the appellant herein insisted for a fresh hearing and a separate judgment. The prayer was accepted and the Division Bench vide its detailed judgment dated 19/12/1997 dismissed the petitions but in the circumstances directed that if the appellants convey their consent to the terms and conditions incorporated in the impugned notices within three months, the respondents may renew the lease granted to such of the appellants subject to their paying the arrears of rent within six months. The respondents were entitled to charge appropriate interest on the amount of arrears of rent between 1-3-1992 to the date of the stay orders obtained by them from the High Court. For the period during the payment of the rent at the rates specified in the impugned notices remained stayed by the Court, the appellants were directed to pay interest @ 18 Per Cent per annum. The amount of interest was required to be paid by the appellants within six months from the date of the judgment. Thus, all such appellants who failed to give their consent in terms of the direction or failed to pay arrears along with interest within the time specified in the judgment were to forfeit their right to remain in possession of the properties leased out to them and the respondents in that event were declared to be absolutely free to recover possession thereof in accordance with law. The Court directed the respondents to take urgent steps to enhance the rent of other similar properties situated by Sector 17 regarding which the complaints were made by the appellants on the plea of discrimination. It may be noticed that the time the High Court delivered the judgment in the case of the appellants, this Court had dismissed the SLP (C) No. 18466 of 1997 which was filed against the judgment in Sahib Singh's case, by order dated 29/09/1997. To protract the litigation further, the appellants filed Review Petitions before the High Court praying therein to reconsider the matter or at least absolve the appellants of their liability to pay the interest as awarded by the main judgment. The Review Petitions were also dismissed on 17/07/1998. Immediately after the pronouncement of the orders in review petitions, the counsel for the appellants made a statement that his clients were prepared to pay the amount of interest for which he wanted some time. He requested for the grant of six months time for the purpose but the Court allowed three months time in the interests of justice.;