2020 Supreme(SC) 116
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
Infinity Infotech Parks Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Shiva Jute Mills Private Limited Through Chief Executive (Authorised Signatory) & Anr – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21341 of 2019
Decided On : 07-02-2020
IMPORTANT POINT
Lessee / tenant of multistoried buildings have to pay maintenance, electricity charges and other charges.
Headnote:
Rent laws - Sub-lease of property - Lessee not paying a single rupee towards maintenance, electricity and other charges - Not permissible - Directed to pay maintenance and electricity charges. (Para 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner-Infinity Infotech Parks Limited is a lessee in the building known as INFINITY BENCHMARK in Kolkata. The 16th floor of the said building was divided into 3 offices. The entire 16th floor along with 5 car parking spaces was Sub-Leased by the petitioner in favour of the respondent no. 2, which in turn Sub-Leased the entire premises in favour of respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 1 is in occupation of the property from 01.02.2012.
The respondent no.1 did not pay a single rupee either on account of lease rent, maintenance charges, electricity charges or other charges and in such event, the petitioner had no option but to disconnect the electricity.
The High Court directed restoration of the electricity without ensuring payment of some amount to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court misdirected itself in directing restoration of the electricity without ensuring payment of some amount to the petitioner.
Result: SLP disposed of.
ORDER :
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. This petition is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Calcutta dated 31.07.2019 in C.O. No.541 of 2019 whereby it allowed the petition of the respondent no. 1 herein and directed the petitioner herein to restore the electricity of the property occupied by the respondent no.1 herein.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 1 who is occupying the 16th floor of the building in question comprising about 29,445 sq. ft., has not paid a single rupee on account of lease rent, maintenance charges, electricity charges and other charges and, therefore, the order directing restoration of electricity without requiring the tenant sub-lessee to pay the requisite charges is totally without jurisdiction.
3. We are only referring to the facts which are necessary for decision of this case and our discussion is restricted to passing an equitable order. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the petitioner-Infinity Infotech Parks Limited is a lessee in the building known as INFINITY BENCHMARK, Bidhannagar, in the District of North 24-Parganas, Kolkata. The 16th floor of the said building was divided into 3 offices. The entire 16th floor along with 5 car parking spaces was Sub-Leased by the petitioner in favour of the respondent no. 2- M/s. Pearl Studios Pvt. Ltd., which in turn Sub-Leased the entire premises in favour of respondent no. 1 vide lease deed dated 01.02.2012 and the admitted case of the parties is that from 01.02.2012, the respondent no. 1 is in occupation of the property. The claim of the petitioner is that it is entitled to Rs.7,29,240/- on account of lease rent up to 02.12.2019.
4. At the outset, we may note that certain disputes between petitioner and respondent no. 2 are the subject matter of arbitration proceedings and, therefore, we are not commenting on the merits of the same and are confining ourselves to the admitted fact that respondent no. 1 is in possession of the entire premises from 01.02.2012. We may also note that an objection was raised that the Sub-Lease in favour of respondent no. 1 is unregistered and insufficiently stamped and, therefore, should be impounded. We feel that this is a matter for the trial court to decide and we have looked into the lease deed only to strike out a balance between the parties and anything said in this order is without prejudice to the rights of the parties with regard to the admissibility of the lease deed in evidence. We make it clear that we have passed this order at the interim stage and any observations made herein are only for passing this interim order and shall not be taken into consideration while deciding the main proceedings which must be decided on the basis of the evidence led before the trial court or the arbitral tribunal.
5. The petitioner claims Rs.7,29,240/- as lease rent from 01.02.2012 to 02.12.2019 which amount is not seriously disputed by the respondent no. 1.
6. The petitioner has also claimed a sum of Rs.15 per sq. ft. per month as maintenance charges inclusive of taxes for the 3 office areas measuring 29,445 sq. ft. Reference has been made to clause 5 and 7 of the lease deed, which are reproduced as under:
“V. To bear and pay proportionate share of all kinds of expenses for all periodical repairs for common areas of the said building, Air conditioning, additions, alterations, treatment, polishing, maintaining, rebuilding and cleaning, painting, entrances, common landings corridors, staircases, sewers, drains pipes, electric lines and installation, insurance and other conveniences including annual maintenance charges in respect thereof as may be incurred by the Sub-Lessor, from time to time and such proportionate share together with service tax shall be calculated and apportioned by the Sub-Lessor conclusively and the same shall be binding on the Sub-Lessee.
xxx xxx xxx
VII. It is made clear that the said service and maintenance together with air-conditioning charges as envisaged herein to be