D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) 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 13 members named in the writ petition were occupying two room apartments constructed by the State Government for the residents of the industrial workers. According to the petitioners, there are two categories--one is lower income group (L.I.G.) and the other is higher income group (H.I.G.). The rent of L.I.G. was Rs. 16 and that of H.I.G. 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 disclosed 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 Para 10 of the writ petition. It has been stated that the quarters were initially allotted to other persons who have either left their employment or have retired or have changed their employment. In Para 11, it has been stated that the petitioners are workmen and they were 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 commercial rate which cannot be realised from the petitioners belonging to the weaker section of the society since the said buildings were constructed pursuant to a welfare scheme. The enhancement of rent is excessive and violative of natural justice. Because of their long occupation, the petitioners should be treated as deemed tenant. Therefore, their occupation Is regular. Accordingly, the said order contained in Annexure-6 cannot be applied in their case.
(3.) We have heard Mr. S. P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel at length.;