- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner No. 1 claims to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and seeks to represent its members. It is alleged that the 18 members named in the writ petition were occupying two room apartments con structed by the State Government for the residents of the industrial workers. Ac cording to the petitioners there are two categories - one is lower income group (LIG) and the other is higher income group (HIG ). The rent of LIG was Rs. 16/-and that of HIG was Rs. 24. 50. It is alleged that the said flats were allotted to some industrial workers who are either dead or have left. The petitioners have not dis closed how, on what condition and in which capacity they have come to occupy the said quarters. It is alleged in the writ petition that they are occupying the said flats for a very long time. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition it has been stated that the quarters were initially allotted to other persons who have either left their employ ment or have retired or have changed their employment. In paragraph 11 it has been stated that the petitioners are workmen and they were also allowed to live in the above premises by the tenants of the said quarters. Nowhere it has been stated that any of the petitioners were allottees of the quarters. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Government Order dated 29-11-1990 which is Annexure 6 to the writ petition on the ground of its being discriminatory and unreasonable since it had proposed to raise the rent to Rs. 235/- per month while proposing to regularise their case if they satisfy the eligibility criteria from the date of their respective occupation. .
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that the enhancement is wholly arbitrary and excessive and that it makes a discrimination between a regular allottee and the petitioners as occupiers. It is contended that the petitioners being workers belonging to the weaker section should not have been so discriminated. The rent charged appears to be a commer cial rate which cannot be realised from the petitioners belonging to the weaker sec tion of the society since the said buildings were constructed pursuant to a welfare scheme. The enhancement of rent is exces sive and violative of natural justice. Be cause of their long occupation, the petitioners should be treated as deemed tenant. Therefore, their occupation is regular. Accordingly, the said order con tained in Annexure-6 cannot be applied in their case. We have heard Mr. S. P. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel at length. Admittedly, the petitioners are not allottees of those quarters. Somehow or other they have entered into the accom modation. 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. Admittedly the petitioners are not regular allottees. Therefore, their occupation cannot be said to be authorised occupants. If such oc cupation is not effected by way of allot ment, it cannot be said that there was a privatey of contract between the Govern ment 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 dis criminating between the petitioners and regular allottees.
(3.) THE order dated 29-11-1990 (An nexure-6) came to be considered by this court in the case of Jag Pal v. State of U. P and others, 1996 (27) ALR 653 : 1996 (2) UPLBEC 1025 : 1996 (1) ARC 238, decided by one of us. THE order dated 29-11-1990 which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition was Annexure-4 in the said case. In the said case it was held as hereinafter: " (5) 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 Govern ment had sought to charge rent at the rate prescribed. This fact is also required to be noted. (6) THE rate of rent, as has been fixed by Annexure-4 to the writ petition, by all reasonable calculations 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-scale. 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. (7) Fixation of rate of rent is not the domain of the Court. THE policy of charging different rate for non- allottees cannot be sub ject-matter with which court is concerned. Such an action is in the nature of legislation with which court does not concern itself and rules of natural justice do not run in the sphere of legis lation, is the consistent view reflected in various judicial pronouncements. Reference may be made in the case of Union of India and another v. Cynamide India Limited and another, AIR 1937 SC 1802 Bates \. Lord Hailsham of Mary lolwne, 1972 (1) WIR 1372; In Cynamide India (supra) the Supreme Court observed: 'the second observation we wish to make is, legislative action, plenary or subordinate is not subject to rules of natural justice. " In the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 160 : (1974)2 SCC 630 : (1975)1 SCR 956, the Supreme Court observed: "price fixation is more in the nature of legislative measure even though it may be based upon objective criteria found in a report or other material. It could not, therefore, give rise to a complaint that a rule of natural justice has not been followed in fixing the price. " In Cynamide India (supra) the Supreme Court held: - "price fixation is neither the function nor the force of the Court. We concern ourselves neither with the policy nor with the rates. ";