999-WP-2390-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 999 WRIT PETITION NO. 2390 OF 2021 Kalpana Ramakant Ganjewar VERSUS Latur City Municipal Corporation Latur WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1148 OF 2020 Pradnya Pramod Ambekar VERSUS Latur City Municipal Corporation Latur Through Its Commissioner WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1055 OF 2020 Hadmanaram Jograram Devasi VERSUS Latur City Municipal Corporation Latur Through Its Commissioner WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1057 OF 2020 Mainoddin Shamshoddin Tamboli VERSUS Latur City Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1056 OF 2020 Laxman Vishwanath Kale VERSUS The Latur City Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1030 OF 2020 Adibkhan Raufkhan Pathan Kelgaonkar Through Mother Seema Begum Raufkhan Pathan VERSUS Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:23862 999-WP-2390-2021.doc Latur City Municipal Corporation Latur Through Its Commissioner WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1052 OF 2020 Himtaram Sadaji Choudhari VERSUS The Latur City Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1053 OF 2020 Adilkhan Raufkhan Pathan Kelgaonkar Through Mother Seema Begum Raufkhan Pathan VERSUS Latur City Municipal Corporation Latur Through Its Commissioner WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1058 OF 2020 Kondanbee Pashaminya Patel VERSUS Latur City Municipal Corporation Latur Through Its Commissioner WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1054 OF 2020 Javedkhan Moh Pashakhan Pathan VERSUS Latur City Municipal Corporation Latur Through Its Commissioner ... Mr. P. R. Tandale for the Petitioners. Mr. A. V. Hon for the Respondents. Smt. A. S. Mantri for State. …. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 12 JUNE 2026 P. C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. Shubham 999-WP-2390-2021.doc 2. In all these Petitions the Petitioners assail the orders dated 22nd July 2019, passed by District Judge-2 Latur in RCA Nos.29, 61, 52, 60, 30, 40, 41, 44, 33 and 36 of 2019 respectively, whereby the appeals filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed and the demand notices dated 19th January 2019, issued by the Respondent-Corporation based upon a Resolution dated 7th September 2018 came to be confirmed. 3. Mr. Tandale, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the erstwhile municipal council Latur had executed a lease deed dated 18th May 2005 with the Petitioners for a period of 30 years. Pursuant to those lease deeds these Petitioners were put in possession of the premises. There is a specific clause in lease deed that if the municipal council intends to increase the rent, they shall constitute a three member committee and the decision of such committee would be binding upon the lease holders. He submits that in contravention of the said clause, Respondent-corporation passed a resolution dated 7th September 2018 and in pursuance of which impugned notices were issued. He further submits that the resolution dated 7th September 2018 is applicable only to the shops which are newly constructed by the Respondent-corporation and not to the Petitioners’ whose shops were leased out by the erstwhile municipal council. 4. He further submits that clause No.5 of the resolution dated 7th September 2018 states that constitution of three member committee would take considerable time and therefore to prevent financial loss, municipal Shubham 999-WP-2390-2021.doc corporation, by the said resolution, resolved to increase the rent. He submits that the impugned notices were issued under Section 79(d) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, but the said provision is not applicable to the areas leased out prior to existence of present Respondent - Corporation. Aggrieved by the said notices, Petitioners filed respective appeals before District Court, Latur but the said appeals have been dismissed without consideration of these aspects. He, therefore, prayed that the order passed by the learned District Judge, Latur, be quashed and set aside, and that the petition be allowed. 5. Per contra, Mr. V. D. Hon learned senior counsel i/by Mr. Ashwin Hon, learned counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposed the present Petitions on the ground that the Petitioners have not challenged the Resolution dated 7th September 2018 passed by Respondent-Corporation. Learned counsel submits that the resolution dated 7th September 2018 passed by the Respondent-Corporation specifically contains Clause 5, wherein it was resolved that constitution of a three-member committee would entail considerable delay. It was further resolved that, in order to avoid financial loss to the Corporation, and in view of Section 79(d) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, the rent ought to be determined on the basis of the prevailing ready reckoner rate and market value. It is further contended that the present petitioners, being shop owners in occupation of premises situated in the heart of the city, are liable to pay Shubham 999-WP-2390-2021.doc rent accordingly. Considering the fact that the erstwhile Municipal Council has now been constituted as a Municipal Corporation, and the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act have become applicable thereto, the present petitioners are liable to pay rent as per the ready reckoner rate and prevailing market value, in pursuance of Section 79(d) of the said Act. Learned senior counsel further submits that in pursuance of the resolution dated 7th September 2018, the respondent Corporation issued a notice under Section 79(d) of the Act. He further submits that the District Judge has duly considered all these aspects and has rightly dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned orders passed by the learned District Judge, it is not in dispute that lease deeds were executed for a period of 30 years commencing from 18th May 2005. Admittedly, the said period of 30 years has not yet expired. It is further not in dispute that the agreement entered into by the erstwhile Municipal Council is binding upon the present Municipal Corporation, in view of the statutory provisions under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, whereby all acts and obligations of the erstwhile Municipal Council stand vested in and are binding upon the successor Municipal Corporation. 7. There is a specific clause in the lease agreement dated 18th May 2005 Shubham 999-WP-2390-2021.doc which reads as under:- “d) At present we accept rent finalized by the general body wide it’s resolution no.15/5 dated 07/07/2004. In future if the rent is changed by the Three mens committee we will accept the rent whatever will be finalized by the Three mens committee.” The bare perusal of the said clause clearly shows that if rent has to be increased, a three-member committee shall be constituted and the decision of such committee shall be binding on the parties. The said clause further stipulates that the revised rent shall be determined and finalized by the said three-member committee. It would be useful to refer to Section 79(d) of the said Act, which reads as follows: 79. Provision governing the disposal of Municipal property.— With respect to the disposal of property belonging to the Corporation other than property vesting in the Corporation exclusively for the purposes of the Transport Undertaking the following provisions shall have effect, namely:— (d) the consideration for which any immoveable property or any right belonging to the Corporation may be sold, leased or otherwise transferred shall not be less than Shubham 999-WP-2390-2021.doc the current market value of such premium, rent or other consideration ; 8. It is not in dispute that if any property is leased out by the Municipal Corporation, the rent must be charged in consonance with the prevailing market value. However, it is equally true that the lease deed executed by the erstwhile Municipal Council is binding upon the present respondent Corporation as well, and all the terms and conditions thereof continue to govern the parties. The successor Municipal Corporation, having stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile Municipal Council, is equally bound by the obligations arising under the said lease deed, and the contractual covenants therein are enforceable against it. The clause Nos.3 and 5 of the resolution dated 7th September 2018 reads as under:- 3. महाराष्ट् महानगरपालिका अलिलिनयम 1949 चे कम 79 (क) व (ड) नुसार महानगरपालिके ची स्थावर मामत्ता भाडेपट्याने देता येते. व त्यापोटी प्राप्त होणारा मोबदा हा अलिमुल्य भाडे लिकं वा अन्य मोबदा यांच्या चाु बाजार लिकं मतीपेक्षा कमी असता कामा नये. त्यानुसार मुदत संपेल्या सव* गाळया बाबत ोरण ठरलिवणे आवश्यक आहे. 5. नगरपालिका सव*साारण सभा लिदनांक 07/07/2004 ठराव क्रं. 15 (5) नुसार त्रीसदस्यीय सलिमतीव्दारा भाडे लिनलिश्चती करण्याबाबत वेळ ागत असल्यामुळे नगरपालिके चे आलिथ*क नुक्सान टाळण्यासाठी तळमजा प्रलित चौ. मीटर 30 रु प्रलित महा व प्रथम मजल्यासाठी रु 20 प्रलित चौ. मीटर प्रलित महा भाडे आकारणी करावी असे ठरावात नमुद के े आहे. तथापी खाी नमुद शॉपी*ग कॉम्पेक्सच्या करारनाम्यामध्ये त्रीसदस्यीय सलिमती मार्फ* त भाडे लिनलिश्चती करण्यात येई असे नमुद के े आहे. Clause 3 and 5 of the said resolution together record that the Shubham 999-WP-2390-2021.doc constitution of a three-member committee would require considerable time. I am of the opinion that successor municipal corporation is bound by the terms of lease deed entered into by erstwhile municipal council. Therefore, the impugned notices issued in pursuance of resolution dated 7th September 2018 are contrary to the lease deed dated 18th May 2005. Therefore I am inclined to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the demand notices and consequentially the orders passed in respective appeals. 9. In view thereof, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned demand notices dated 19th January 2019 issued by Respondent-corporation are quashed and set aside. Consequently, the orders dated 22nd July 2019, passed by District Judge-2 Latur in RCA Nos.29, 61, 52, 60, 30, 40, 41, 44, 33 and 36 of 2019 are also quashed and set aside. 10. The Respondent-corporation is at liberty to constitute three members committee as per the lease deed and take a decision about the increase of the rent. Respondent-corporation shall inform the Petitioners about constitution of the said committee and shall hear the Petitioners before increasing the rent. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham