Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the action taken by the corporation (Life Insurance Corporation of India). By a letter dated December 13th, 2001 the corporation informed him about the increase in the rate of rent for the accommodation occupied by him in the capacity of a tenant of the corporation. At that date he was paying rent @ rupees 2300/- per month. He found reasons not to agree to pay rent at the increased rate. He offered rent at the existing rate of rupees 2300/- per month. The corporation, however, declined to receive rent at that rate.
(2.) Since the petitioner did not deposit the rent at the rate claimed by the corporation (the corporation claimed rent at the increased rate with effect from March 1, 1996), by notice dated November 28th, 2003 it terminated the tenancy with effect from December 31th, 2003. Thereafter it decided to initiate eviction proceedings under provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The estate officer concerned accordingly issued notices under Section 4 dated November 28th, 2005. The proceedings initiated under the 1971 Act are pending decision before the estate officer. Now this writ petition dated May 15, 2006 has been taken out by the petitioner questioning the notices dated December 13, 2001 about the increase in the rate of rent, and dated January 6, 2003 asking the petitioner to take steps in the matter of payment of rent at the increased rate. The petitioner has also questioned the notice dated November 28, 2003 terminating the tenancy. The notices issued by the estate officer have also been challenged by him. Besides challenging the above-noted notices he also prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to frame a uniform formula for revision of rent for all tenants in the light of the existing guidelines of the government.
(3.) Counsel submits that the corporation has been following double standard in the matter of revision of rent. He says that as will appear from an affidavit (at page 146) filed by the corporation in a case pending before the Bombay High Court with respect to increase of rate of rent payable for properties in Mumbai the corporation took the stand that it would not enforce any unilateral revision. He says that there is no reason why the same is not the position regarding enforcement of unilateral revision made in 2001 in so far as the petitioner is concerned. He argues that the action of the corporation is discriminatory.;