Disposed

Smt. Santosh Murarka v. The Patna Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Patna HC24 Mar 2014CWJC/11336/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking execution of a lease deed and possession of a shop, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the Municipal Commissioner. The Commissioner was ordered to examine any remaining defects and, if none exist, direct execution of the lease deed and grant possession within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Municipal Commissioner; respondent to examine for deficiencies and direct execution and possession within four weeks if no defects found.

Smt. Santosh Murarka Vs The Patna Municipal… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11336 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== Smt. Santosh Murarka Wife Of Shri Dhruv Prasad Murarka D- 401, Kaushalya Estate, Bandar Bagicha, Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna 800001 2. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna 800001 3. The Land - Estate Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna 800001 .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Yashraj Bardhan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 3 24-03-2014 Heard Mr. Jha for the petitioner and Mr. Bardhan for the Respondent Patna Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation). In spite of indulgence granted to the respondents, no counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner became an applicant for allotment of shop No.81 in Block No. B 1/B situate at the first floor of Maurya Lok Shopping Complex/Centre owned and managed by the Corporation in the city of Patna. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 175/- vide Annexure-1 for supply of application form. She thereafter filed her application for allotment of the shop. The Land Estates Officer of the Corporation by a communication dated

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.11336 of 2013 (3) dt.24-03-2014

¶4

2 / 6

¶5

13.08.2010 (Annexure-3) informed that the Corporation has resolved to settle the aforesaid shop in favour of the petitioner on the conditions spelt out therein. In the light of the said communication the petitioner in four instalments deposited a total sum of Rs. 13,20,252/-. Such deposit was made by the petitioner between period 26.08.2010 to 08.01.2011. The petitioner was again called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as security deposit which was deposited on 10.11.2009 vide Annexure 4/D. Even after deposit of the said amount the lease document was not being executed in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as she was not given possession of the shop. This prompted the petitioner to file two representations (Annexure- 5 and 6), followed by a legal notice (Annexure-9). The petitioner also produced draft copy of the lease document for execution thereof in favour of the petitioner. The Land Estates Officer of the Corporation by a communication dated 19.01.2012 (Annexure-7) pointed out certain defects in the draft lease document and she was called upon to rectify those defects/deficiencies and re-submit the draft of the lease deed/document.

¶6

The contention of the petitioner is that the same was promptly rectified and submitted. In spite thereof the lease document has not been executed in favour of the petitioner and she

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.11336 of 2013 (3) dt.24-03-2014

¶8

3 / 6

¶9

has not been given possession of the shop in question. Under these circumstances, she has filed the present writ application seeking a direction upon the respondents particularly the Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation to take steps for registration of the lease document in respect of the shop no.81 in Block B,1/B at the first floor in Maurya Lok Shopping Complex/Centre Patna followed by handing over possession thereof.

¶10

Mr. Jha learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the document issued by the erstwhile Patna Regional Development Authority(now dissolved) and in particular the terms for long term lease deed disclosed/stated therein. It is submitted that the Corporation in order to settle the shop required the application filed in the prescribed format and thereafter to pay the amount in instalments subject to other conditions spelt out therein. The petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions spelt out in the said document and if there be any remaining deficiency she is ready to remove those if called upon by the respondent Corporation. After having paid the amount the respondent has arbitrary denied her the benefit/fruit thereof inasmuch as she has not been given possession of the shop in question after executing the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. It has thus been submitted that the respondents be directed to execute the lease

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.11336 of 2013 (3) dt.24-03-2014

¶12

4 / 6

¶13

deed in favour of the petitioner and hand over the possession of the shop in question.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that if the petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the communication of the Land Estates Officer dated 13.08.2010 (Annexure-3) and the same was consistent with the terms and conditions for such long term lease as spelt out in the document enclosed at Annexure-2 then the respondent Municipal Commissioner be directed to examine and pass appropriate order for execution of the lease deed and giving possession of the shop in question in favour of the petitioner.

¶15

Considering the submissions made at Bar and on perusal of the pleadings on record it appears that the Respondent Corporation in the light of the provisions contained in documents relating to the complex in question (Annexure-2) permitted the petitioner to file her application and thereafter deposit a sum of Rs. 13,20,252/- for long term lease of the shop in question. Subsequently, she was also called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- which was earlier not deposited by the petitioner as the security deposit. It further appears that the petitioner submitted a draft lease document for execution thereof. Having seen certain defects therein she was called upon by a communication dated

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.11336 of 2013 (3) dt.24-03-2014

¶17

5 / 6

¶18

19.01.2012 (Annexure-7) to remove those defects and re-submit the same. The contention of the petitioner is that in the light of the said communication the draft lease/document has been modified/corrected and re-submitted with the respondent Corporation. If that be the case then non execution of the lease deed and thereby giving possession of the shop in question for such long period of time is nothing but arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the respondent Corporation. The counsel for the respondent Corporation has taken a stand that the respondent be granted an opportunity to consider as to whether there is any further deficiency in complying with the conditions for execution of the lease deed and also considering the fact that in spite of indulgence no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, this Court is persuaded to dispose of the application by the following order:-

¶19

The petitioner should approach the Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation (respondent no.2) seeking a direction for execution of lease deed and handing over possession of the shop in question. The Respondent Municipal Commission will examine the said request/application of the petitioner only to see whether there is any other defect(s)/deficiency in complying with the conditions for execution of lease document in favour of

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.11336 of 2013 (3) dt.24-03-2014

¶21

6 / 6

¶22

the petitioner. If there is no such defect/deficiency which requires to be fulfilled by the petitioner then the respondent Municipal Commissioner shall pass appropriate order within four weeks of the presentation of the application directing the competent authority of the Respondent Corporation to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner respecting the shop in question. Once the lease deed is executed the respondent will grant possession of the shop forthwith in favour of the petitioner.

¶23

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶24

HR/-

Smt. Santosh Murarka v. The Patna Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Santosh Murarka v. The Patna Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalan Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Heera Lal Sangahi Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Balak Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Nasimuddin Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Babu Saheb Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.