BRAJ MOHAN SINGH Vs. RANCHI REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY R.R.D.A. RANCHI
LAWS(JHAR)-2006-5-68
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on May 12,2006

BRAJ MOHAN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Ranchi Regional Development Authority Through Its Secretary R.R.D.A. Ranchi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order issued by the respondent No. 2 ΕΎ by his letter dated 13.1.2004 whereby the allotment of the shop made in his favour at the Rock Garden, Kanke, Ranchi has been cancelled with effect from 15th March, 2004 on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the lease agreement dated 22.1.2002.
(2.) PETITIONER 'scase is that he was allotted the said shop premises having an area of 500 sq. ft. by virtue of the said lease agreement, on payment of security amount of Rs. 51,000/ - and on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 1500/ - per month. As per the terms of the lease agreement, the petitioner raised construction in the premises by investing more than Rs. 2,50,000/ - (Rupees two lakh fifty thousand). The plan for the same was approved by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority. The petitioner, thereafter, started his canteen and for that purpose he purchased articles and equipments for more than Rs. 1,00,000/ - (Rupees one lakh). Petitioner has been paying rent regularly in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Suddenly, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 22.11.2003 asking the petitioner as to why the allotment made in his favour be not cancelled for violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. One of the alleged violations was non -payment of the rent of Rs. 1500/ - for the month of October, 2003. The petitioner filed his written reply stating, inter alia, that he has paid rent up to the month of December, 2003 and there was no arrear of rent against him. He also stated that due to non - availability of electric connection in the canteen the petitioner could not use refrigerator, coffee machine etc. and requested to provide electric connection without any delay. The Vice Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, respondent No. 2, thereafter, by his impugned letter No. 31 dated 13.1,2004 cancelled the allotment. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the impugned prder of cancellation is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unjust inasmuch as no cogent reason has been assigned for cancellation of the said allotment. Learned counsel submitted that a huge amount was invested in constructing the canteen and in purchasing the required articles and equipments and without any valid reason the allotment has been arbitrarily cancelled. Learned counsel submitted that there is no violation of any of the terms whatsoever and the respondent has no authority to cancel the allotment on the ground of non -payment of one month 'srent. Learned counsel referred to the clause of the agreement, which provides for the cancellation of the allotment for non -payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 1500/ - continuously for six months. Learned counsel submitted that there was neither the express allegation of violation of any other terms nor there are speaking reasons for not accepting the explanation, which has been rejected observing that it was not satisfactory. Learned counsel submitted that by the said allotment a valuable right accrued to the petitioner and he has invested a considerable amount of money and as such the respondent has no authority to cancel the said allotment in such mechanical manner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents - Ranchi Regional Development Authority, on the other hand, submitted that the shop was allotted to the petitioner on certain terms and conditions and for running a canteen, but without any just reason he did not open the canteen, he did not also pay the monthly rent as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Learned counsel submitted that though in the notice there was mention of non -payment of rent of only one month, the petitioner was guilty of non -payment of rent of several months. Learned counsel submitted that in the agreement, the period of such six months had been reduced to a period of three months and as such the petitioner 'sallotment was liable to be cancelled for non -payment of rent for three months.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.