Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra & 5 Ors vs Smt. Lochanabai Wd/O Bhaiyasaheb ... on 14 March, 2016
Bench: A.B. Chaudhari
sa452.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Second Appeal No. 452 of 2002
The State of Maharashtra,
represented by the
Collector, Amravati. ..... Appellant.
Org. Deft. No.1.
ig Versus
Smt. Lochanbai widow of
Bhaisaheb Thakre,
aged about 52 years,
occupation business and
household works,
now residing at Plot No. 12,
Hill Top, Ambazari,
Nagpur. ..... Respondent.
Org. Plff.
*****
Mr. Kadu, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the appellant, State.
Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, Adv., for respondent [absent].
*****
CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
Date : 14th March, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
sa452.02
01. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 31st
October, 1995 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge [Senior Division],
Amravati, in Special Civil Suit No. 129 of 1991, and in particular, the
Judgment and Decree 17th June, 2002 passed by learned Joint District
Judge, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 418 of 2000, in respect of
recovery of arrears of rent by the landlord from the appellant, State of
Maharashtra, the present appeal was preferred by the State against
the money decree. On 3rd July, 2003, this Court admitted the appeal
on the following Substantial Question of Law:-
"Whether the suit for arrears of rent in the instant
matter could be said to be within limitation."
02. The facts reveal that the plaintiff owned the Municipal House
No. 262 at Mangilal Plots, Amravati, which was rented out to the Office
of Senior Geologist, Ground Water Survey & Development Agency,
Amravati, in the year 1976, and the rent was to be paid as per the rent
fixed by the Public Works Department of Govt. of Maharashtra. In the
year 1981, Public Works Department fixed the rent at Rs. 1800/- per
month, and thereafter, for revision of rent, when application was made,
it was fixed at Rs. 3500/- per month by the Executive Engineer, Public
Works Department, who was competent to issue a Certificate of
sa452.02
Revision of rent. The concerned Department accepted that revision of
rent at the rate of Rs.3,500/- to be paid from 1st January, 1985
onwards and even paid the rent at the said rate from 1st April, 1987 to
31st July, 1987. But then, on 5th February, 1988, the defendant no.2,
i.e., the Office of Senior Geologist, Ground Water Survey &
Development Agency, informed the plaintiff that the Govt., has
per month.
cancelled the sanction to pay the rent at enhanced rate of Rs.3,500/-
Having paid the rent as sated earlier, the payment of
excess amount was sought to be adjusted. Plaintiff's case was that
when the job was entrusted to the Executive Engineer for fixation of
rent, there was no occasion to cancel the sanction. Moreover, the rent
was also paid at the revised rate and, therefore, the action of Govt. in
adjusting the payment of excess amount made at the enhanced rate of
Rs. 3500/- in further payment of rent was bad in law and consequently,
the money decree was sought against the Govt. The Govt. questioned
fixation of rent at revised rate by the Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, stating that the same was unjustified and, therefore, the
sanction was revoked. In other words, after granting the sanction, the
same was revoked. The courts below clearly found the move on the
part of the Govt. to sanction the revision of rent and then to revoke it
as a result of whims and caprice of its officer and nothing more. The
Trial Court, however, granted the decree only at the rate of Rs. 1700/-
sa452.02
per month and dismissed the major claim for rent. The Appellate
Court, however, found that there was total injustice committed by the
Govt., on the landlord. The Lower Appellate Court found that there was
a mistake committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the claim on the
ground of limitation. The learned Lower Appellate Court rightly found
that, in fact, the Govt., had sanctioned the revised rent and paid it also.
But it is for the first time, by letter dated 5th February, 1988, the
defendant no.2 informed the landlord, plaintiff, about cancellation of
the sanction to pay rent at revised rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month and,
therefore, the limitation will start only from that point. I think, the
reason is perfectly legal and correct. I quote paragraph no.20 from the
judgment of the Lower Appellate Court on this issue, which reads thus:-
"(20) Thereafter, the plaintiff had persuaded the
Defendants to pay the arrears at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per
month and this correspondence went on till 1989. We find
that the Govt., had inquired with Executive Engineer, PWD
and asked him to justify the fixation of rent at Rs. 3,500/- per
month and the correspondence went on in 1989, which is
obvious from the letters Exh.56 and Exh.57. So, till 1989 the
Govt., was considering as to whether the rent at 3,500 per
month should be paid to the Plaintiff or not. Then under
letter Exh.39, dated 12-7-1988 the Defendant had asked the
Plaintiff to take the possession of the property as it was not
taken till then. This shows that even on 12.7.1988 the
possession was not handed over to the Plaintiff. Then in this
reply dated 12.7.1988 the Defendant had also asked the
plaintiff to produce the certificate showing non-availability of
the Govt., accommodation so as to release the arrears of rent
in his favour. So, even in July, 1988 the Govt., has shown
willingness to release the amount on compliance of certain
formalities. In the light of this, it must be said that the Govt.
has accepted the liability to pay the arrears under this letter,
sa452.02
dated 12th July, 1988. So, the limitation will have to be
counted from that date."
It is, thus, clear that the Lower Appellate Court has clearly answered
this issue in favour of the plaintiff, with which I fully concur. In the
result, the Substantial Question of Law will have to be answered in the
negative. I, thus, make the following order:-
ig ORDER
[a] Second Appeal No. 452 of 2002 is dismissed.
[b] No costs.
Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
