AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Akil Kureshi, J.—The Petitioner was given a stall of the ownership of ST Corporation for running a canteen on license basis for a period of 11 years. Upon completion of the said period in the year 1983 when the Corporation tried to reclaim possession, Petitioner resisted the same. Proceedings under the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act was undertaken. Competent Authority as well as Civil Court in appeal held the Petitioner to be unauthorised occupant, directed his eviction and also decided to levy penalty for his extended unauthorised use.
At the time of admission of the matter on 1.4.2002, it was recorded that Petitioner is not interested in getting back the possession. With respect to recovery also, though the Court refused any interim protection but provided that such recovery will be subject to the result of the petition.
Under the circumstances, I have heard learned advocate for the parties on the quantum of penalty.
Learned Counsel Shri Vyas for the Petitioner submitted that even as per the ST Corporation, highest bid received in the year 1983 was of Rs. 3500/-per month by way of license fee whereas authorities have charged penalty at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-per month and thereupon calculated interest at the rate of 18% without any basis.
On the other hand, counsel for the ST Corporation contended that Petitioner is not traceable. He has not paid any amount towards penalty. He opposed the petition.
Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the averments on record, I am of the opinion that monthly fee of Rs. 3500/-offered by highest bidder in the year 1983 can be taken as base for fixing penalty amount to be collected from the Petitioner. Even counsel for the Petitioner did not dispute that in his agreement with Corporation there was a clause for escalation of license fees. Obviously, license fee agreed cannot apply in a block period of 10 years or more. However, the terms on which highest bidder had agreed to suffer such escalation are not on record. To provide for a rate formula, I am of the opinion that 10% increase per year on the license fee of Rs. 3500/-would be in order. Further considering period during which disputes arose between the parties, interest can be charged at 12% instead of 18% in absence of any statutory or contractual specifications.
In the result, petition is disposed of directing the Respondent to recalculate the penalty to be levied from the Petitioner.
Withabove modification in the impugned order, petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute to the above limited extent.