- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioners have claimed that they are living in different quarter in new Idgah Colony, Kanpur, meant for weaker section of the society specially industrial workers. The rent was at Rs. 10 per month. By a Circular dated 16-6-1993, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 10 for those who are in the basic Pay-scale upto Rs. 350 and Rs. 12 for those who are above Rs. 350 but below Rs. 500 and Rs. 17. 50 for those who are in the Basic Pay-scale of Rs. 500 and above. The said facility was also extended to other employees of the Government aided schools, colleges and Universi ties etc. , by letter dated 30-5-1974, which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. By letter dated 15- 4-1978, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the Government had directed the Labour Commissioner for realising arrears from the occupants in reasonable instalments.
(2.) BY an order dated 29-9-1990 the Labour Commissioner was asked to realise the rent at the enhanced rate from such occupants who were not regular allotees. The said letter is dated 29-11-1990, which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In the said letter rent for one room was to be charged at the rate of Rs. 125 per month while for two rooms the rate was Rs; 235 per month. It is this order, the petitioners have challenged on the ground that the petitioners being workers hailing from the weaker category, they are being discriminated upon with those who are regular allottees, though belonged to the same class. Further question that was raised is that the accommodation having been provided to the weaker sections of the society out of the welfare scheme, cannot be utilised for commercial purposes and rent cannot be charged at such higher rate of rent. The enhancement of rent at the rate mentioned in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, is arbitrary and oppressive and violative of natural justice. It has been claimed that the petitioners are admittedly in occupation for a long time. Therefore, they should be treated as deemed tenant. There fore, their occupation is regular and, therefore, the said order as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, cannot be applied in their case. Sri S. N. Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that there has been 100 enhancement which is wholly arbitrary and excessive and that the imposition is discriminatory as between the regular allottees and the petitioners. Admittedly the petitioners are not allottees of those quarters. Some how or other they have entered into the accommodation. They have not disclosed as to in which manner they have come to occupy the said quarters. They have based their claim only on the ground that they are occupying the said quarters for a long time and, therefore they should be treated as deemed tenant. Therefore, admittedly, the petitioners are not regular allottees. Therefore, their occupation cannot be said to be authorised occupation. If such occupation is not effected by way of allotment, it cannot be said that there was a privity of contract between the Government and the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners do form a different class other than the regular allottees. Therefore, it cannot be said that by charging different rate of rent from the petitioners who are not allottees the Government is discriminating between the peti tioners and regular allottees.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioners not. being allottees their occupation cannot be said to be authorised. Therefore, the petitioners are liable to be evicted under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. Instead of resorting to the process of eviction the Government has sought to charge rent at the rate prescribed. This fact is also required to be noted. The rate of rent, as has been fixed by Annexure 4 to the writ petition, by all reasonable calculation cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. Even then the petitioners having not disclosed any ingredient of unreasonableness, they have not made out a case that they have been allotted this quarter on the basis of their pay-scales. The petitioners not being allottees and having been in unauthorised occupation, is liable to pay damages. Nothing has been disclosed to show that the rate fixed is arbitrary and excessive.;