- (1.) THE subject of challenge in the writ petition is an action taken under the Public Premises Act for alleged rentals payable by the petitioner under the contract. THE jurisdiction to initiate action is the subject of challenge before this Court.
(2.) THE contract under which the petitioner bound himself to make the payment of Rs. 1,25,500/- was an agreement entered on 27.03.1998 for lifting dead animals from within the limits of Municipal Council, Payal. THE contract period was of one year. It appears that the petitioner had experienced some difficulties and issued a notice on 15.05.1998 stating that he was not willing to go through the contract. I am not prepared to go into the question of whether such a unilateral decision would be possible or whether there was a justification for the same but I hasten to decide on the competence of Municipal Council for passing an order for recovery under the Public Premises Act. The recovery, which is contemplated under the Public Premises Act is for rent for the public premises and the definition given under Section 2(g) is as follows: "2(g) "rent" in relation to any public premises, means the consideration payable periodically for the authorized occupation of the premises and includes: (i) any charge for electricity, water or any other services in connection with the occupation of the premises, (ii) any tax (by whatever name called) payable in respect of the premises, where such charge or tax is payable by the State Government or the corporate authority."
(3.) THE amount payable does not amount to rent payable for the use of any premises. THE action taken under the Public Premises Act is, therefore, incompetent and without jurisdiction. THE impugned order is quashed and the appeal proceedings, which are subject of impugned order, are also quashed.;