### Unilateral revision of ground rent without prior notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice.

The Petitioner challenged a communication dated 10.04.2024 issued by the Respondent demanding ₹1,42,05,896/- as outstanding rent for premises at 15, Parliament Street, New Delhi.

The Petitioner also sought to set aside a communication dated 04.07.2024, which rejected a request for the revision of ground rent.

The primary grievance was that these adverse administrative actions—fixing and demanding rent—were taken unilaterally without issuing a prior show-cause notice or affording the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

The court noted that this matter was identical to previous petitions involving Hardev Singh Akoi and M/s Claridges Hotel Pvt. Ltd., where similar notices were challenged.

The court applied the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side), asserting that any administrative action involving civil consequences must be preceded by a clear and precise notice to satisfy the requirement of a fair procedure.

It relied on Biecco Lawrie Ltd. and Anr. v. State of West Bengal, which establishes that denial of notice and opportunity to respond vitiates administrative decisions.

It further cited Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, which likens the necessity of notice to a "diamond’s luminosity" in the rule of law.

M. Guruswamy Nadar v. Commissioner, HR&CE, which specifically set aside the fixing of "fair rent" done without a hearing.

The Court observed that the Respondent proceeded to determine outstanding rent and reject revision requests unilaterally, which constitutes an administrative action with significant "civil consequences".

Following the precedent set in the related matters of Hardev Singh Akoi and M/s Claridges Hotel, the Court found that the Respondent failed to controvert the fact that no hearing was granted.

By applying the logic from Canara Bank, the Court reasoned that since notice is the "first limb" of natural justice and was absent here, the resulting orders were wholly vitiated.

The Court maintained judicial consistency by treating this dispute as identical to the previous hotel lease cases where similar unilateral revisions were set aside solely on the ground of procedural impropriety.

Consequently, the Court set aside the communications dated 10.04.2024 and 04.07.2024 and remitted the matter back to the Respondent to decide the issue afresh after providing the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

The Petitioner was granted liberty to seek further legal recourse if aggrieved by the subsequent fresh decision.