Rent demand founded on an order passed without hearing violates natural justice and is unsustainable.

The petitioner was allotted Shop No. B-17, measuring approximately 11 × 19 feet, in the Chapra Club premises upon payment of a one-time amount of ₹3,00,000, which was allegedly adjustable towards contractor cost and rent/tax, with no further rent payable during the stipulated allotment period.

The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller allegedly fixed rent in Rent Fixation Case No. 04/2015 by order dated 13 June 2015. Pursuant to that order, the petitioner was served with notice dated 23 March 2018 demanding ₹1,14,164 as arrears of rent from 1 January 2015.

The petitioner contended that he had neither been served notice nor given an opportunity of hearing before the rent-fixation order was passed.

The respondents asserted that notices had been issued to the concerned tenants and that the rent had been fixed by a reasoned order; they also contended that the petitioner had an alternative appellate remedy before the Collector, Saran.

However, the respondents did not produce the order dated 13 June 2015 before the Court to establish service of notice and opportunity of hearing.

Whether the demand notice dated 23 March 2018, founded on the rent-fixation order dated 13 June 2015, could be sustained when the petitioner alleged denial of notice and opportunity of hearing, and the respondents failed to produce the underlying order to establish compliance with natural justice?

Whether the respondents could proceed afresh against the petitioner after granting due notice and an opportunity of hearing?

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem, which requires that a person affected by an adverse administrative or quasi-judicial order must receive due notice and a meaningful opportunity to present his case before the order is passed.

The Court further proceeded on the basis that a consequential demand cannot be sustained where the foundational order is alleged to have been passed without such opportunity and the authority fails to produce material demonstrating compliance with procedural fairness.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The impugned demand for arrears was directly based on the rent-fixation order dated 13 June 2015.

Although the respondents asserted that notice had been served and the rent had been fixed after considering the relevant materials, they failed to place the rent-fixation order or other supporting material before the Court to show that the petitioner had actually received notice and an effective opportunity of hearing.

In the absence of proof of compliance with natural justice, the Court held that the demand founded on that order could not be sustained.

The Court therefore did not finally determine the validity of the allotment terms, the respondents’ authority to revise rent, or the merits of the rent calculation; instead, it confined the relief to the procedural defect and permitted a fresh proceeding in accordance with law.

The notice was accordingly quashed.

The respondents were granted liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law after providing the petitioner due notice and an opportunity of hearing.

The writ petition was allowed, and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.