9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars of rent and related payments - Chief Commissioner of Income Tax fixed the rent at Rs. 34,302/- per month. This fixation was unilaterally not communicated to the writ petitioner which has been admitted by the department in affidavit-in-opposition. To be noted, that in spite of the direction issued in the earlier writ petition in the appellant department did not take any constructive steps to comply with the direction and to reasonably deal with the writ petitioners who are admittedly owner of the premises. Therefore, the learned Single Bench was right in observation that the department was delaying the matter for a prolonged period and failed to incorporate the revised CPWD rates as the quantum of rent for the building in question. As pointed out earlier and as well as rightly noted by the learned Single Bench all along the appellant department have acted on the basis of CPWD rates for assessing the rent for the premises in question. The circular issued in 1987 is also to the same effect and therefore the appellant department cannot deviate from such norms. There is no disputed question of fact and all that the hiring department was harping upon with regard to the CPWD rates. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Department was directed to pay to the writ petitioner interest on such amount from 1st June, 2023, 16% per annum till the date of disbursement. The Income Tax Department was given liberty to institute a proper civil suit in respect of the money claimed on the alleged Municipal tax arrears and repair and maintenance charges, if incurred by the Income Tax Department, from the writ petitioners. If such a claim is made, the same was directed to be adjudicated in accordance with law by the competent civil Court upon following due process of law and nothing in the order passed in the writ petition shall prejudice the rights of the department in such suit if instituted by them within the period of limitation. The Income Tax Department being aggrieved by such directions has filed the present appeal. 2. We have elaborately heard Mr. Ashok Chakraborty, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Om Narayan Rai and Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department and Mr. Soumya Majumder and Mr. Gour Baran Sou, learned Advocates appearing for the contesting respondents/ the writ petitioners. 3. The first point which has to be raised by the learned A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g dealt with under the writ jurisdiction of the Court. It was further held the same fact of relief is sought under a contract which is not statutory, will not entitle the State in a case by itself to ward off scrutiny of its action or inaction under the contract, if the complainant party is able to establish for the action/ inaction is arbitrary. Further it was held that without intending to be exhaustive, it may include the relief of seeking payment of amount due to the aggrieved party from the State as the State can, be called upon to honour its obligations of making payment, unless it be that there is a serious and genuine dispute raised relating to the liability of the State to make the payment. Further it was held that the question as to whether the writ petitioner must be told off the gates would depend upon the nature of the claim and the relief sought for by the petitioner, the questions, which would have to be decided and, most importantly, whether there are disputed questions of fact, the resolution of which is necessary, as an indispensable prelude to the grants of the relief sought for. 7. Thus, the Court can exercise jurisdiction even in a private law realm subject to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consolidated rent for all the three floors as I consider this to be fair and reasonable. I am unable to accept the rent of Rs. 4.60 per sq. ft. per month as the same was not recommended by the CPWD. The representatives of the landlords agreed to accept the rent of Rs. 34,032/- per month with effect from 30.01.1999 as consolidated rent as final and they have agreed to withdraw pending court cases, if any. 9. As could be seen from the above paragraph the recommendation of CPWD has been accepted. So far as the matters pertaining to maintenance and repair charges the same was to be borne by the land lords / writ petitioners. Earlier another writ petition was filed since the revised rent was not paid to the writ petitioners and the said writ petition in WP 4178 (W) of 2005 was disposed of by the order dated 23rd August, 2006 by directing to consider the writ petitioner s application for fixation of rent in accordance with law, upon hearing the writ petitioner and pass a speaking order, a direction to be complied with within a period of 8 weeks. The order was communicated by the writ petitioner to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax by letter dated 12.05.2006. The Chief Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aspect regarding the revision of rent as contained in Chapter 6 of the Manual. Admittedly this was never the stand taken by the department at any earlier point of time. Nonetheless in paragraph 6.1 of chapter 6 of the Manual, it has been stated that the hiring department will nominate a representative of appropriate seniority as member of hiring committee as CPWD who will associate with the said committee s work in market survey enquiries for collection of relevant data. Further it has been observed that the reasonable rent certificate given by the CPWD Hiring Committee is only an advisory and all other aspects with regard to the adhoc percentage of increase, negotiation with the landlord for settlement of mutual agreeable rent budget provision etc. did not fall under the purview of the hiring committee but are the responsibility of the hiring department. The Manual on Infrastructure is an guideline which has been prescribed to be enforced by the hiring department and it cannot be said that it is a binding directive on the owners of the premises which is sought to be hired. In any event, this present stand raised before us was not the stand taken by the appellant Income Tax Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y way of supplementary affidavit to which there has been no specific denial by the appellant department. The details of the arrears of the rent was given by the writ petitioners in a tabulated format i.e. from 31.01.1994 to 30.01.1999, 31.01.1999 to 30.01.2004, 31.01.2004 to 30.01.2009, 31.01.2009 to 30.01.2014, 31.01.2014 to 30.01.2019 and 31.01.2019 to 30.06.2021. There were five columns in the tabulated statement of which column A was the amount according to the recognized principle of valuation. Column B was according to the prevailing market rate of rent. Column C was the amount already received. The next column was A minus C i.e. the balance to be received according to principles of valuation and the last column being B minus C i.e. the balance to be received according to the market price of rent. The learned Single Bench rightly took note of the rent which was calculated according to the recognized principles of valuation and deducted the amount already received by the writ petitioners and the balance receivable was Rs. 2,82,39,242/- which has been directed to be paid by the department to the writ petitioners. 16. Thus, we find that not only the writ petitioners/owners of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
