I had got myself registered for an MIG category `B' house under the General Registration Scheme 1984 of the Rajasthan Housing Board at Kota. In a lottery drawn in 1988, a house was allotted to me and I deposited the seed money, as required. The completion report of the project engineer in respect of the houses under the MIG category `B' is dated January 1996. The allotment-cum-possession letter was however issued to me in July 1996. I paid a total cost of Rs 1,76,986 towards premium on the land and cost of construction. I have recently found out that five other registered applicants for MIG category `B' house in whose favour reservation of houses under the same scheme had been made on the same date, but had the allotment-cum-possession letter issued to them in March 1996 were charged a total price of Rs 95,000 only. How can the housing board charge two different prices for the same flat under the same housing scheme? Do I have any remedy in the matter?

-J R Sardesai, Nagpur

It appears that even though the completion report of the project engineer was dated early 1996, the allotment-cum-possession letter was issued to you only in mid-1996, whereas it was issued to the other registered applicants a couple of months earlier. Once the construction has been completed at a particular point of time, there cannot be any justification in demanding two different sets of prices from the allottees. The housing board has adopted discriminatory means possibly to favour certain selected registered applicants. A prima facie case of discrimination can be made out against the board by way of a writ petition, seeking a mandamus against it, directing it to charge the same price from similarly placed registered applicants.

I have been a tenant in Delhi since 1992 at an agreed rent of Rs 4,500 per month. I had been regularly paying the rent till November 1994, and receiving duly stamped receipts from the landlord. In the month of December 1994, I had to go abroad for my wife's treatment and I locked up the tenanted premises in my possession. I came back to India in July 1997 and received a notice from the landlord to vacate the premises and pay him the rent for the period from December 1994 till July 1997. I am not interested in continuing to be in possession of the flat, but why should I pay rent for the period when I was not residing in the flat? Also, please advise me as to whether, after taking possession of the flat, the landlord can sue me for the past rent?

-L M Dewan, Delhi

Even though you were not physically residing in the flat during the period from December 1994 to July 1997, yet the tenancy, not having been brought to an end, continued. You had possession of the flat as a tenant and you continued to be a tenant even though you were not effectively residing in the flat. Therefore, just because you now want to surrender your tenancy rights in favour of your landlord, it does not mean that you are not liable to pay the rent outstanding for the period from December 1994 to July 1997. Your landlord is entitled to the rent for that period and has a right to recover the sum in case you fail to pay up. You are also advised that in case the landlord files a monetary claim to recover the outstanding rent, you will be liable to pay the rent.

I had given my shop (in a prestigious shopping complex of Delhi) on a leave and licence basis for 36 months. The licence will expire in October 1997. The licensee has not troubled me at all and has been complying with the terms and conditions of the licence agreement. He now wants to renew the licence for another 36 months with a 20 per cent increase in the compensation, retaining the same deposit. Is it true that if I give my premises to the same party for more than 60 months, then the party can claim tenancy rights to the premises? And if I wish to give the premises to the same party, should I wait for nearly two months before I renew the licence?

-Raghuvir Pundit, New Delhi

It is clear that you have given your shop on a leave and licence basis and, therefore, the terms of the licence will be governed by the provisions of The Easement Act and the Transfer of Property Act. The impression that the licensor would get into trouble on renewing the licence with the same person is misconceived. You can give your premises on a leave and licence basis to the same party by drawing up a fresh agreement through a competent advocate. Even after 100 months, the licensee will not be able to establish tenancy rights in the premises as long as your agreement is drawn clearly as a leave and licence agreement.

You can go ahead and renew the licence immediately when it ends in October 1997 as your rights as a licensor are protected.

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.