Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2006 Latest Caselaw 2156 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ seeking quashing the letters bearing nos. 3/824/V/D and 3/824/B/DEO/65 dated 7th October 1992 and 5th October 1992 respectively issued by the respondent No. 2, defense Estate Officer, and prohibiting the respondents from evicting the petitioner or his agents from the premises and also from sealing the premises. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to charge rentals at the original rate and not as per the revised rates.

2. The petitioner is a Government Company inter alia engaged in the supply of petroleum and petroleum products throughout the country.

3. The brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that the petitioner at the instance and with the concurrence of the Government, introduced certain scheme to rehabilitate the handicapped defense personnel. Under the scheme they were to be allotted petrol pump/ Filling-Cum-Service Station for which purpose the petitioner took two plots on lease belonging to the Ministry of defense for establishing retail outlets. Two plots were leased out to the petitioner by Military Estate officer, Delhi Cantt., one at Gopinath Bazar measuring about 1254.5 sq. mtrs and the other at Gurgaon road measuring about 6600 sq. feet, by letter No. 3/824/11 dated 2.8.1974 at an annual rent of 13,043.20/- and at the rate of Rs. ?4292/- per annum respectively with a premium of Re.1 each. Both the plots were allotted to handicapped defense personnel nominated by the Director, Rehabilitation, Ministry of defense. At Gopinath Bazar the petrol pump had been allotted to Flt. Lt. Ajit Kumar.

4. According to the petitioner no money is charged from the defense personnel to whom the plots have been allotted. The petitioner regularly paid the rentals in respect of both the plots and on the expiry of first five years, in December 1988, the respondents renewed the lease ex-post facto but at a rent higher than what was chargeable. With regard to plot at Gopinath Bazar rent and premium were enhanced to Rs. 25,083/- and Rs. 1,25,450/- respectively and the rent and premium of plot at Gurgaon road was enhanced to Rs. 49,052 and Rs. 2,45,260/- respectively for a period of 1981-85 and again it was fixed at Rs. 53,957.20 and Rs. 2,69,786 for a period of 1986-91. It is asserted by the petitioner that he made several representations complaining about the increase in rentals as being arbitrary and unjustified and contrary to scheme.

5. It is contended by the petitioner that the ex-post facto sanction was granted with respect to the Gurgaon road outlet by letter dated 16-4-1992 and the proposal for renewal of lease with respect to the Gopinath bazaar plot is lying pending. The petitioner subsequently made various representations against the exorbitant increase in the rental as being arbitrary and unjustified but they continued paying the rentals at the rate agreed which were duly received by the respondents.

6. Petitioner's case is that the respondents subsequently refused to accept the rentals when the same was tendered, on the ground that the proper sanction from the government for the renewal of the lease has not been received. Pursuant thereto the impugned letters dated 5.10.1992 and 7.10.1992 were send to the petitioner by the defense Estate Officer, respondent No. 2, calling upon the petitioner to make payment of the arrears of lease rent within a period of 30 days failing which the amount shall be recovered under Section 7(3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and the petitioner shall be evicted by sealing the petrol pump under the provision of Section 5(c) of the Public Premises Act(Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

7. The petitioner impugns these letters issued by the Defense Estate Officer, respondent No. 2 on the ground that the respondents' action is illegal, unjustified and without jurisdiction and the procedure as prescribed by law has not been followed by the respondents.

8. The petition has been contested by the respondents who have filed the counter affidavit of Shri M.P. Singh, who is a defense Estate Officer refuting the averments made by the petitioner. The respondent admitted that the ex-post facto sanction was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi, however, since no further lease agreements were being executed with the petitioner beyond the period from 3.1.1980 and 16-9-1981 in respect of the two sites i.e. Gopinath bazaar and Delhi-Gurgaon road, petitioner became ?unauthorized occupant? in respect of these two sites within the meaning of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. It was further contended by the respondents that the fact regarding non-renewal of the lease agreement with respect to the two sites was communicated by the respondents to the petitioner. They further contended that the rent and the premium are fixed as per the Government policy and instruction and is fair, reasonable and justified. It was further contended by the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner was earning profits by running the pump cum service stations from the public sector and were also getting commission from the Ministry of Petroleum. They further asserted that the policy for charging the rent and premium for lands given on lease were strictly followed. The rate of enhancement was communicated to the petitioner vide various correspondences. The respondents further contended that since the petitioners have not been evicted physically from the site and is still running business peacefully, so the requirement to observe the mandatory provisions under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act has not arisen at this stage and it is for them to take appropriate action against the defaulter being a ?competent authority?. They further submitted that the case for recovery of damages has not been referred to the Estate Officer and only a simple notice was issued to the petitioner for clearing government dues as a cautioned measure and so the question of abiding by the procedure as prescribed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 for recovery of damages has not arisen.

9. The petitioner filed the rejoinder affidavit and denied the averments made in the counter affidavit and contended that the lessee being handicapped defense persons and the petrol pump leased to them under the policy to rehabilitate the defense personnel, the ground rent and premium was fixed at concessional rate under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 and the concessional rate ought to have been maintained when the lease was renewed. It was asserted that the rent could not be increased arbitrarily on the ground that the petrol retail outlet business is lucrative. The petitioner further clarified that the service station license fee is very nominal as the petitioner gets Rs. 16 for every thousand liters of petrol sold and Rs. 13 for every thousand liter of diesel sold and from this income the petitioner has to pay ground rental to the respondent and the property tax to the Cantonment Board and other local taxes including expenses for maintaining the infrastructure of the plots. The respondents have refused fixation of concessional rates without taking into consideration the welfare policy and the fact that the petrol pumps were allotted to handicapped defense personnel in a scheme to rehabilitate them. On these grounds the petitioner sought quashing of rentals fixed for Gopi Nath Bazar and at Gurgaon Road leased to the petitioner which have been allotted to the handicapped defense personnel. The petitioner has relied on the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937.

10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the petition, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and the documents filed therein. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. The prime question which has come up for consideration is whether the respondent could enhance the rent contrary to their own welfare policy for rehabilitating the handicapped defense personnel on the ground that the business of petroleum product is very lucrative and decline renewal of lease in favor of the petitioner and whether the proceeding initiated by the respondent is a proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and if so then can the obligation to issue show cause notice as has been prescribed by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 could be dispensed with in the facts and circumstances of the case.

11. The petitioner contends that no show cause notice has been issued by the respondent under Sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 before issuing the impugned letters. Relevant extract of communication dated 7.10.1992 which was issued to the petitioner by the defense estate officer is as under:

3. Now, you are hereby given last and final opportunity to clear the arrears of damages by 30th Oct. 1992 failing which the amount shall be recovered under Section 7(3) of the PPE Act, 1971 and the dealer would be evicted by sealing the petrol pump under the provision of Section 5(c) of the Act ibid.

Relevant extract of communication dated 5.10.1992 which was issued to the petitioner is as under:

3. Please note, if the arrears of the lease rent are not paid within 30 days of the receipt of this notice, the amount shall be recovered under Section 7 of the PPE Act, 1976 and the dealer would be evicted by sealing the petrol pump under the provision of Section 5(c) of the Act ibid.

12. Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 which provide for procedure for eviction of an unauthorized occupant are as under:

Section 4: Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction:

1. If the estate officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the Estate Officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made.

2. The notice shall: a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises,-

i) to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than seven days from the date of issue thereof, and

ii) to appear before the Estate Officer on the date specified in the notice along with the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown, and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired.

3. The Estate Officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned.

Section 5: Eviction of unauthorised occupants:

1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under Section 4 and (any evidence produced by him in support of the same and after personal hearing, if any, given under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 4), the estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the estate officer may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises.

2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction (on or before the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of the date of its publication under Sub-section (1), whichever is later) the estate officer or any other officer duly authorised by the estate officer in his behalf (may, after the date so specified or after the expiry of the period aforesaid, whichever is later, evict that person) from, and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary.

Section 4 provides for issuance of show cause notice by the Estate officer to a person who is/may be in unauthorized occupation of the public premises in his opinion, calling upon him to show cause as to why an eviction order should not be made against him which in turn gives the person affected a right to appear and state his case before the Estate Officer. Section 5 contemplates that an eviction order can be passed only after considering the cause shown in pursuance of notice under Section 4 and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore opinion is formed under Section 4 and order is passed under Section 5.

13. Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is as under:

Section 7: Power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises:

1) Where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the estate officer may, by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such installments as may be specified in the order.

2) Where any person is, or has at any time been, in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, be order, require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such installments as may be specified in the order.

2A) While making an order under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), the estate officer may direct that the arrears of rent or, as the case may be, damages shall be payable together with simple interest at such rate as may be prescribed, not being a rate exceeding the current rate of interest within the meaning of the Interest Act, 1978.

3) No order under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) shall be made against any person until after the issue of a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why such order should not be made, and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same, have been considered by the estate officer.

From bare perusal of Section 7 it is evident that it provides for a summary procedure for the recovery of the arrears of rent or damages from an unauthorized occupant. Section 7(1) provides for the procedure to recover the arrears of rent from any person who is in arrears of rent payable in respect of the public premises. Section 7(2) prescribes for recovery of damages from any person who is or has at any time been in unauthorized occupation of public premises. Section 7(3) provides for issuance of show cause notice before passing any order under Sub-section 1 and 2. Thus notice is not to be issued only in those cases where physical eviction from the premises is to be enforced but also in cases where arrears of rent / damages is sought to be recovered from the unauthorized occupant/tenant.

14. Thus for initiating any proceedings for eviction or recovery of arrears under the Public Premises Act the first step as stipulated under Act is issuance of show cause notice under the relevant provisions of Public Premises Act. The requirement of issuance of notice under Section 4 or Section 7(3) of the Public Premises Act is a condition precedent and is a mandatory requirement provided by the statute itself before proceeding with any eviction order if the estate officer is satisfied that a prima facie case for eviction under the Public premises Act has been made out. The Estate officer does not have power to evict a person or recover any amount without following the procedure stipulated under the Act.

15. Under Section 4 what is provided is if the Estate officer was of the opinion that any person was in unauthorized occupation of any public premises he was required to give him a notice to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be made. The respondent has not shown any legal basis on which the opinion could be formed by the estate officer that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant. Similarly there is no basis for demanding exorbitant increase of rent in view of policy to rehabilitate the defense personnel. The alleged reason that the petitioner was earning profits by running the pump cum service station from the public sector and was also getting commission from the Ministry of Petroleum, is also based on the respondents own surmises and conjectures and is contrary to the policy to rehabilitate the defense personnel for whom the ground rent and premium was fixed at concessional rate under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1973. It is also apparent that no notices were issued by the respondent No. 2 under Section 4 and 7(3) of the Public Premises Act and therefore no eviction order or a sealing order could be made under Section 5 of the Act nor any amount could be recovered under the Act. The respondents do not have power de-hors the Act to evict the occupant or to seal their premises or to recover damages or arrears of rent from the occupants. In order to evict the unauthorized person, first the estate officer had to form an opinion that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant and then he had to follow the mandate of the Act and ought to have adhered to the procedure meticulously.

16. In Smt. Ganeshi Bai v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. the single judge made following observation: ?The Estate Officer draws his power from the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Being a creature of that statute he must meticulously adhere and abide by all its mandates. In Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor as well as in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi , the principle that has been enunciated is that statutory procedure has to be followed in letter and spirit on pain of the entire action being struck down. These two cases have been followed in Sudhir Goel v. MCD 2004 IV AD (Delhi) 493 : .'

17. The Apex Court in the case of , Bihary Chowdhry v. State of Bihar and CIT, Madras v. T.V. Sundaram Tyengar held that when the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and intelligible and does not admit of two meaning, it is the duty of the Court to give effect to it and consideration of hardship will not be a legitimate ground for not faithfully implementing the mandate of the legislature.

18. Thus it is no more res integra that the procedure as laid down in the statute should be and must be strictly followed which has not been done in the instant case. Public premises Act clearly provides for the procedure which is to be followed before an eviction order is to be made. On a plain reading of the Public Premises Act it is clear that on formation of opinion that the occupant is an unauthorized occupant and issuance of notice, sets the machinery of law into motion. After a proper hearing is given to the parties then only an eviction order, if at all, is to be passed because otherwise it will have serious consequence for the party which is to be evicted. Any order passed without formation of an opinion by the estate officer that the occupant is an unauthorized occupant, notice to that party and giving proper hearing, will not be in consonance with the statutory provision and will not be sustainable. The Estate officer is a quasi judicial authority and is, therefore, bound to observe the principles of natural justice.

19. Notices issued do not provide that the estate officer is of the opinion that the petitioner was liable to pay rent at enhanced rate and on non payment of enhanced rent, petitioner has become unauthorized occupant. Notices do not contemplate an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from the premises and why they should not pay the rent at enhanced rate. Notices issued are not the notices as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act. By the said notices, the respondent No. 2 has demanded the rent at enhanced rate and on failure to pay the rent at enhanced rate, the consequence of eviction and sealing has been communicated. The notices are not part of the procedure contemplated under the Act. From the bare perusal of the notice issued it is clear that no opportunity has been granted to the Petitioner to defend and show cause that in view of the policy of rehabilitation of defense personnel the concessional rates fixed under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 could not be varied. The petitioner has not been given an opportunity to show cause that he is not earning profits by running the pump cum service stations as these service stations were given to the handicapped defense personnel from whom a very nominal fee of Rs. 16 for every thousand liters of petrol sold and Rs. 13 for every thousand liter of diesel sold is taken out of which petitioner has to pay the ground rental and property tax to the Cantonment Board. No notice has been given to the petitioner to show cause that the concessional rates fixed at the time of giving the sites could not be revised without considering the welfare policy.

20. The procedure followed by the estate officer is contrary to procedure contemplated under the Act. The mandatory procedure contemplated under the Act can not be diluted or whittled down on the premise that the impugned notices are only reminders. Reminders could be after taking action in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under the Act. Without following the procedure prescribed neither the eviction or sealing could be contemplated nor the demand could be raised and therefore, the plea that the notices are just reminders are without any factual and legal basis and can not be sustained.

21. The reminder for eviction and sealing and demand for arrears could be made only after passing orders in compliance with the procedure contemplated under the Act. The plea of the respondents that the petitioner has not been dispossessed and no eviction proceeding has been initiated so there is no requirement of issuance of show cause notice under the provisions of Public Premises Act is unsustainable and is contrary to facts and law. The law contemplates the demand for eviction and sealing and demand for arrears only after passing orders under relevant provisions. Without legal eviction order which could be passed pursuant to eviction proceedings, no reminder for eviction or sealing could be done. The defense raised by the respondents is rather symptomatic of complete non application of mind and futile justification of their arbitrary and illegal acts. Therefore the notices 5.10.1992 and 7.10.1992 can not be sustained nor the demand raised therein and they are set aside and quashed.

22. Now the other plea of the petitioner whether the increase in the rentals as demanded by the respondent is arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioner contended that the lease was granted and the ground rentals and premium were fixed in terms of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937. The relevant provisions of the rules are as under:

13. Lease of defense Land by private treaty to the IOC for Petrol Pump:

The following general decisions have been taken:

1. No separate rate for petrol pumps would be fixed in the STRs for leases for petrol pumps. Where any such rates have been fixed, the same would be ignored.

2. Normally, the rent of land in Cantonment leased for petrol pumps/service stations would be 4 times the residential STR in the area in questions and premium equivalent to 10 times the said rent i.e 40 times the residential STR. The lease of the land would be for a period of 10 years where after the rent and premium would be refixed on the same principles in the event of a decision taken to extend the period of the lease.

3. The exceptional case where the MEO considers that the value of land desired for petrol pump/service stations would be substantially more than 4 times the value of residential land in the same zone/cantonment, he will be at liberty to recommend a higher rate and premium.

14. Lease of defense Land to IOC for retail out-lets/service stations:

i. Petrol pump sites in cantonments as well as on defense lands elsewhere will in future be leased to IOC on conditions that the dealership is reserved to Ex- Servicemen of the three services, in the form of co-operative or as partnership depending upon the feasibility subject to inclusion of Ex-Officers/Ex-JCOs/Ex- Ors (and equivalent).

ii. The selection of the persons eligible for allotment of petrol pump sites will be done by a committee appointed for the purposes by the I.O.C in consultations with the Director General, Resettlement, Ministry of defense. Ex-Servicemen whose total monthly income from all sources is more than Rs. 400/- per month will not be eligible. Ex-Servicemen who have already taken defense land on lease for agricultural or other purpose will not be eligible.

iii. The areas leased out for retail out lets service stations will be from 1000 sq.yards to 1500 sq.yards depending upon the layout.

iv. A nominal premium of Rs. 1/- only will be charged.

v. Initially, the normal rent in accordance with the existing rule, viz four times the rent applicable for residential purpose will be charged.

vi. The periodicity of the lease will be five years at a time. Rent will be revised at the time of every renewal, taking into account the relevant facts adopted by the Ministry of Works and Housing while revising the lease rent in respect of other Central Government lands leased out for retail outlet/service stations purposes and including the rent profits earned during the operation of the preceding lease.

b) The dealership cannot be transferred without the prior permission of the Govt. While agreeing to transfer Govt. may enhance the rent and premium. Govt.may refuse permission to transfer if the lessee fails to agree to pay the enhanced rent and premium.

15. Lease of defense land for Retail Outlets for POL/Service Stations:

It has been decided that: 1. Grant of fresh leases and renewal of leases of land on concessional terms where dealership is given to ex-servicemen/war widows having income of less than Rs. 1000/- p.m from all sources will be considered on merits in each case.

2. Fresh leases and renewals in all other cases will be granted on normal terms i.e. rent equal to four times the rent for residential purposes and premium equal to rent multiplied by the number of years for which lease/renewal of lease is sanctioned.

3. Fresh leases would be granted initially for a ten years term. Subsequently, renewals would be granted for 5 years term.

16. Definition of Ex-Servicemen:

Ex-Servicemen-for purposes of allotment of defense Land temporarily surplus to military requirements means a person who has served in any rank (whether as a combatant or as non-combatant) in the Armed Forces of the Union including the armed forces of the former Indian States but excluding the Assam Riffles, defense Security Corps, Central Reserve Engineering Force, Jammu and Kashmir Militia, Lok Sahayak Sena and Territorial Army for a continuous period of not less than 6 months after attestation and has been released otherwise than by way of dismissal or discharged on account of misconduct or inefficiency or has been transferred to the reserve pending such release or has to serve for not more than six months for completing the period of service requisite for becoming entitled to be released or transferred to the reserve as aforesaid. This definition would also be applicable for determining eligibility of ex- servicemen for allotment of Petrol Pump dealership.

Rule 13 provides that defense land in cantonments shall be leased to Indian Oil Corporation for running petrol pumps/service station. Rule 14 provides for defense lands will be leased to Indian Oil Corporation on conditions that the dealership be reserved for ex-servicemen only and also provides for the terms and conditions on which the lease shall be granted. Rule 15 provides for grant of fresh leases and there renewal on concessional terms where the dealership is given to ex-servicemen/war widows. Rule 16 defines ex- servicemen.

23. The plots were leased to the petitioner at concessional rates in terms of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 on the ground that they further allot the land to the handicapped personnel. The basic idea behind it was rehabilitation of the handicapped defense personnel and providing them with some means of livelihood. The petitioners fully complied with the terms and conditions as specified in the rules in furtherance of which the petitioner allotted the leased plots to handicapped defense personnel not chosen by them but whose names were nominated by the Director-General, rehabilitation, Ministry of defense. The only reason for rent hike given by the respondent seems to be that running of petrol pumps is a profit making venture. This assumption of the respondent is without any basis and contrary to rules and their own policies.

Nothing has been produced by the respondents that the running of the outlet/petrol pumps is contrary to the policy of rehabilitation of handicapped defense personnel and contrary to the rules. On the premise that the business of petroleum products is very lucrative, the respondents could not violate their own policies and claim enhancement of rental and decline the renewal of leases, which properties were given to the handicapped defense personnel by the petitioner at the instance of the respondents. The respondents have failed to disclose and produce the basis for claiming the enhanced rate and the reasons for not renewing the leases which were meant for rehabilitation of handicapped defense personnel who were also selected by Director, Rehabilitation, Ministry of defense. The rent and premium were fixed as per the policy and instruction and could also be revised in accordance with the policy and instruction and could not be revised only on the ground that the business is very lucrative. Nothing has been averred and produced to show that the enhancement demanded, which seems to be reason for not renewing the leases, was according to the policy for rehabilitation of handicapped defense personnel and rules applicable thereto. The allegation that the petitioner is earning profit from these two outlets which were allotted to the handicapped defense personnel for their rehabilitation by the Director, rehabilitation, Ministry of Defense, is also an assumption of the respondents without any basis. The petitioner has contented categorically that the policy for charging the rent and premium for lands given on lease had been strictly followed has not been refuted by the respondents nor any thing has been produced by the respondents to show to the contrary.

24. The Rules contemplates revision of rent at the time of renewal taking into account relevant facts adopted by the Ministry of Works and Housing while revising the lease rent in respect of other Central Government lands leased out for retail outlet/service stations purpose and including the rent profits earned during the operation of the preceding lease. The respondents have not adopted any relevant facts proposing enhancement of rent. Neither relevant facts of Ministry of Works and Housing has been considered nor the profits earned during the preceding lease. The profits earned during the preceding lease could be ascertained only after demanding the details of profits earned during the preceding lease from the assignee of the petitioner, handicapped defense personnel whom the petrol pumps have been allotted pursuant to selection made by the Director, Rehabilitation, Ministry of Defense. A fortiori, on the bald allegation that the business is lucrative, enhancement in rental could not be claimed.

25. Since the petrol pumps were allotted for rehabilitation of handicapped defense personnel, the renewal of lease could not be denied arbitrarily and without assigning some rational. It is not the case of the respondents that the disability of the defense personnel had extinguished so as not to renew the lease or that the handicapped defense personnel had been fully rehabilitated. In absence of these relevant criteria, the respondents on their whims and in arbitrary manner could not decline renewal of the lease. It is apparent that ex- post facto sanction had been granted with respect to Gurgaon Road by letter dated 16th April, 1992 and the proposal for renewal of lease with respect to Gopinath Bazar outlet was pending. In the facts and the circumstances, the respondents would be liable to renew the lease without seeking enhancement of rent contrary to the provision of Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, till the allottees are fully rehabilitated or the disability of the handicapped defense personnel is no more. Consequently, whether the allotment should continue for rehabilitation or should be discontinued, will also have to be decided by the Director, Rehabilitation, Ministry of Defense or any other competent authority on behalf of said Directorate and till then the respondents are liable to renew the lease and the rental shall be demanded or enhanced by the respondents only in accordance with the provisions of Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937.

26. It will be appropriate to mention that the matter remain on board of regular matter for considerable period, but neither any one appeared on behalf of the respondents nor any assistance was rendered to this Court.

27. Inevitable inference in the facts and circumstances is that the demands raised by the respondents by letters No. 3/824/B/DEO/65 dated 5th October, 1992 and letter No. 3/824/V/DEO/91 dated 7th October, 1992 are not sustainable in law and are illegal and quashed and the respondents are not entitled to demands raised therein nor the respondents are entitled to evict the allottees of the petitioner from the their premises at Gurgaon Road and Gopinath Bazar nor the respondents are entitled to seal the premises. The petitioner is also liable to pay the rental in accordance with the rentals fixed under Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 and not the revised rentals as demanded by the respondents.

28. With these directions the rule is made absolute and the writ petition is allowed with the above directions. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.