Allowed

Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Aurangabad v. Municipal Council, Sillod

Bombay HC14 Jul 2016WP/3539/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition between state instrumentalities, the High Court quashed a demand for enhanced rent and property tax. The Court ordered the petitioner to pay the earlier rent rate since October 2009 and directed the parties to amicably fix a rate within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication quashed; petitioner directed to pay rent at the earlier rate from October 2009; parties to amicably determine rent within four months.

Senior Superintendent of Post Offices… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.3539/15

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.3539 OF 2015

¶7

Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad Vs. The Municipal Council, through its Chief Officer and another.

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's orders

¶10

Mr.S.B.Deshpande, Asstt. Solicitor General for petitioner.

¶11

Mr.B.V.Virdhe, A.G.P. for the State. Mr.S.D.Hiwrekar, advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶12

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND K.K.SONAWANE,JJ. Date : 14.07.2016.

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

Heard.

¶15

This unfortunate Writ Petition depicts the sorry state of affairs between the local self-Government and the Union on the other. It is litigation between the two arms of the Governments. The Apex Court time and again has deprecated the two arms of the Government resorting to the litigation against each other.

¶16

The dispute is with regard to the rent to be charged by the Respondent for the property occupied by the petitioner. The property is occupied by the petitioner for running the Post Office.

¶17

¶18

W.P.No.3539/15

¶19

The property is owned by Respondent No.1 Municipal Council. The said property is in possession of the petitioner since long time, even prior to constitution of Municipal Council. After the constitution of the Respondent – Municipal Council, the location of the said premises has changed but it is not disputed that the Respondent is a owner/landlord and the petitioner is the tenant over the said premises. It is stated that up to September 2009, rent at the rate of Rs.75/- p.m was paid by the petitioner to the Respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide impugned communication, the petitioner is charging enormous rent i.e. Rs.97,200/- (Rupees ninety seven thousand two hundred) p.a. and in addition to the said rent is also fastening property tax of Rs.22,356/- (Rupees twenty two thousand three hundred fifty six) upon the petitioner. According to Mr.Deshpande, learned ASG, the same is illegal. The property tax is not to be paid by the tenant. The learned ASG submits that there is a policy of calculating the rent and paying it if the Union or its Offices like the petitioner are the tenants. The said policy is required to be adhered to.

¶20

Mr.Hiwrekar, learned counsel for Respondent states that since 2009, the petitioner has not paid the rent, even at the rate of Rs.75/- p.m. The same is controverted by the petitioner on the ground that the Municipal Council is not accepting the same. Mr.Hiwrekar, learned counsel further submits that for getting the

¶21

¶22

W.P.No.3539/15

¶23

valuation done through competent authority, the petitioner was requested from time to time to sign on the data sheet but the petitioner did not cooperate. Many request letters were issued in that regard. The said property is not exempted from levy of property tax. On non-payment of the rent and the property tax, the Respondent has a right to seal the building U/s 152 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was asked to pay the rent as per new valuation.

¶24

We have considered the submissions. As observed above, the petitioner and Respondents ought to have settled the matter amicably between themselves and ought to have avoided litigation. It does not befit the instrumentalities of the State to litigate amongst themselves. The rent amount can be settled between the parties considering the relevant provisions of the Statute and the Rules existing.

¶25

Considering the above, the impugned communication is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall pay rent amount due since October 2009 till date at the rate at which it was paying earlier. The Respondent shall accept the same without prejudice to its rights and contentions of a higher rent to be received by it.

¶26

The petitioner may approach the Office of Municipal Council and the parties shall amicably arrive at the rent to be paid

¶27

¶28

W.P.No.3539/15

¶29

by the petitioner to the Respondent, keeping in mind the Statute and the Rules operating in this field. The said exercise of determining the rent shall be done expeditiously, amicably between them preferably within four (4) months.

¶30

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶31

(K.K.SONAWANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶32

Dt.14.07.2016. asp/office/wp3539.15

¶33

¶34

W.P.No.3539/15

Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Aurangabad v. Municipal Council, Sillod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Aurangabad v. Municipal Council, Sillod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahebrao Kashinath Atole Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Chandrashekhar Govind Behere Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Kusum Parmeshwar Adhagale Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Ravji Sakharam Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Archana Petroleum, Ahmednagar Vs Union of India and Others

Ramling Namdeo Aaskule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others