This writ petition calls into question the meeting of District Assessment Committee, Jhelum held on 01.06.2019 and publication of auction notice dated 24.8.2019 for putting to auction the leasehold rights of various shops.
This order shall also decide Writ Petitions No. 2469 of 2019, 2470 of 2019 and 2471 of 2019 in which similar facts have been pleaded and same relief has been sought as in this writ petition.
2. The petitioners are tenants of the shop s under the Municipal Corporation Jhelum. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner held a meeting on 01.06.2019 in which assessment of the rent of various shops was determined.
Consequently , a notice was published in daily newspaper for putting to auction various shops including those of the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel submits that till date no notice for enhancement in the rent as determined by the Deputy Commissioner was served on the petitioners. In is furthermore pleaded that the Administrator , Municipal Corporation or the Deputy Commissioner had no authority to assess the rent or to put to auction the shops in question.
4. It is apparent that the rent agreement between the parties was executed in the year 2013 for a period of five years. The period of tenancy has come to an end. It is furthermore apparent that the dispute between the parties relates to the assessment of rent which, was determined in the meeting held on 01.06.2019. Today , the Administrator , Municipal Corporation Jhelum who was present in the Court stated that the rent of the shops in question was determined by a committee which had taken into the account the recommendations made by the Excise and Taxation Department as well as that Revenue Staff. It was furthermore stated that there was a huge difference between the rent being paid by the petitioners and the rent determined by the committee. As a result, it was decided to put the lease of the shops to auction with option to the petitioners to match the highest bid.
5. Clause 10 of the rent agreement execu ted between the parties contains an arbitration clause according to which any dispute under the terms of the agreem ent is to be resolved by the District Coordination Officer. Indisputably , the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the committee enhancing the amount of rent of the shops in question.
The dispute inter se the parties is relatab le to the Arbitration clause. It is settled law that writ cannot be issued in respect of the contracts in which there is an arbitration clause (see Muhammad Naeem v. District Council Pakpattan 2000 CLC 373, Haji Muhammad Akhtar v. Zila Council, Hafizabad 2000 CLC 1923 , Kaamy Construction Co. v. WAPDA through Chairman etc 2001 YLR 734 and Muhammad Ansar v. Administrator , Town Committee 2000 PTD 478 ).
6. A challenge to the authority of the Administrator was also made through this writ petition for proceedings with the auction of the shops in question. It is, however , clear that the Local Governments is not functional at the moment and is being run by the appointed by the Provincial Government. By a combined reading of Sections 306 and 316 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2019, the Administrators have validly been appointed under the said provisions. The challenge to the authority and power of the Administrator by the petitioners is misplaced. Be that as it may, the petitioners have the right to either participate in the auction or to match the highest bid made in regard to the said shops.
7. This writ petition as well as connected writ petitions are not maintainable and are accordingly dismissed .