Y. Appala Naidu and others vs Assistant Engineer (Settlement), SE Railway, Vishakhapatnam and others

Heard both sides.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition contends that the petitioners are threatened to be evicted on the ground that they have not paid the enhanced license fee with effect from 1986.

The learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the respondent-Railways have absolute discretion to enhance the license fee by giving a notice of 30 days. It is admitted that notice in respect of enhancement of license fee was given in December, 1998 and the enhanced license fee was demanded to be paid with effect from January, 1999 and also the arrears. It is apparent that clause 17 of the license agreement relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent cannot be interpreted to authorise the respondent to enhance the license fee retrospectively. The quantum of license fee is a matter of agreement between the parties. It is always open to the occupants not to agree to pay enhanced license fee and be prepared for the consequences namely quitting the premises in question. Thus, I am of the opinion that the license fee cannot be enhanced retrospectively and the respondents cannot compel the occupants-licensees to pay the enhanced license fee for the period prior to issuance of notice by the respondents under clause 17 of the license agreement. It is, therefore, directed that the respondents shall not evict the petitioners on the petitioners agreeing to pay the enhanced rate of license fee with effect from January, 1999. Accordingly the petitioners are directed to execute license agreement within four weeks incorporating the terms relating to payment of enhanced license fee and to deposit the said license fee within three weeks thereafter. On the failure to deposit within the said period it shall be open to the respondents to take such steps as they are advised in evicting the petitioners.

The writ petition is closed with the above directions. All the WPMPs., stand closed.