Nita Wahal v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home

"Heard Sri Apoorva Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepanshu Das, learned counsel for the opposite parties. The petitioner says that rent of the premises in question has been fixed by Deputy Custodian of Enemy Property w.e.f. 01.04.2024 as Rs.6,85,213/- without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 22.09.2022 passed in Writ-C No.5875 of 2022 [Uma Shankar Halwasiya & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.] wherein this aspect was considered and it was held that this cannot be done without an opportunity of hearing to the tenant. On being confronted, Sri Deepanshu Das, learned counsel for the opposite parties contended firstly that the tenancy of the petitioner itself is highly doubtful and all communications / notices to him to submit tenancy agreement etc has not been responded, therefore, this petition is not maintainable on behalf of the petitioner.

Secondly, even assuming that it is maintainable, the opportunity to the petitioner was granted vide Annexure no.2 which is dated 01.01.2025 before enhancing the rent. He also sought time for further instructions from his client in the matter. Prima facie, both the contention appear to be incorrect to the extent that both Annexure nos.1 and 2 which are impugned are addressed by the Deputy Custodian of Enemy Property to the petitioner firstly fixing the provisional rent and asking the petitioner to confirm to terms and conditions and secondly, determining the rent finally and asking the petitioner again to confirm to the same. Annexure no.2 does not give an opportunity of hearing / notice to the petitioner prior to enhancement of rent rather it provisionally determines the rent and only asks the petitioner that 'if you accept the above terms and conditions , you may confirm to this office by email/ letter as per acknowledgement format attached on or before 10.01.2025'.

The petitioner claims to have responded to this letter dated 01.01.2025 vide her letter dated 09.01.2025 requesting for documents/ information/ calculation sheet. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of providing the said information, the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 was passed determining the rent payable in respect of the premises in question. In this process, in para no.5 it was mentioned that the approved methodology for rent calculation is attached herewith for the petitioner's reference but no such attachment was made nor is it mentioned at the bottom of the letter. Moreover, this document also does not provide the relevant information nor opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as envisaged in the Division Bench judgment referred hereinabove. Determination has been made based on the approved methodology but the methodology has not been annexed. The chart at Sl. No.8 etc refers to paragraph 5 of the attached methodology but methodology has not been annexed.

Whether the petitioner is a tenant is not the issue here, the issue here is whether the order impugned by which rent has been fixed/ determined for the premises in question and copies of the impugned order which have been addressed to the petitioner give a right to file this writ petition or not as prima facie they do give a right especially as occupancy is not disputed whether it is legal or illegal is another matter. Let Sri Deepanshu Das, learned counsel for the opposite parties seek instructions in the light of the aforesaid and assist the Court on the next date and produce methodology referred in the impugned order and proof of its service upon the petitioner whether prior to passing of the impugned order or along with it. List this case on 24.03.2025 as fresh. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner as prima facie the contention of the petitioner appears to be correct.