The court emphasized the importance of adhering to lease deed terms and the entitlement of the petitioner to benefit from relevant government notifications.

Biswanath Somadder, J.

1. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day’s list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.

2. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 20th March, 2017, in WP 28741 (W) of 2016 (Sri Debasish Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.).

3. The appellant before us was the writ petitioner whose writ petition stood disposed of with the following observations:-

“The respondent no.3 has submitted a report in the form of an affidavit before this Court on this date in compliance with the previous direction given by this Court. It appears from the said report that on February 29, 2016 one Rajesh Chirimar, the Councillor of Ward No. 39 of Bidhan Nagar Municipal Corporation submitted one complaint before the respondent no. 3 on the ground that commercial activities are going on in the residential plot No. BA-169. An enquiry was conducted in connection with the complaint made by the Councillor of Ward No. 39 of Bidhan Nagar Municipal Corporation and it was found that the entire building situated on Plot No. BA-169 is used as guest house under the name and style “Treebo Platinum” in violation of the terms and conditions incorporated in Clause 2(10) of the original lease deed, as no permission was granted for running commercial activities in the building situated on residential plot No. BA-169. It is also pointed out in the said report that on May 9, 2016 one Arpit Jain has submitted an application before the respondent no.3 praying for no objection certificate for opening one ceremony house on the building situated at Plot No. BA-169.

While learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for granting permission to the petitioner for execution of the deed in favour of one Arpit Jain in respect of the said property, learned counsel for the State respondents has prayed for dismissal of the writ application for suppression of material facts and for doing commercial activities on the residential plot without any permission from the authority concerned as per terms of original lease deed.

On consideration of the original lease deed dated May 5, 1977 executed by the Governor of the State of West Bengal in favour of one Debesh Mukherjee, father of the present petitioner, I find that the land in question was given to the father of the petitioner on terms and conditions laid down in the deed of lease. It is specifically laid down in Clause 2(10) of the terms and conditions incorporated in the lease deed that the land or the structure situated on Plot No.B.A.169, Sector-1, Salt Lake, Calcutta cannot be used for any purpose other than residential purpose without prior permission in writing of the Government or any authority prescribed in this behalf by the State. It further appears from the order of mutation granted in favour of the petitioner on May 16, 2011 by the respondent no.3 that the order of mutation is granted in favour of the petitioner subject to the terms and conditions of the original lease deed executed on May 5, 1997 between the Governor of State of West Bengal and Debesh Mukherjee since deceased.

There is nothing on record to indicate that permission was granted either to the original lessee Debesh Mukherjee or to the present petitioner by the respondent no.3 at any material point of time for using the structure situated on Plot No.B.A.169, Sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata for commercial purpose. Accordingly, the use of the structure situated on the said land for commercial purpose is in violation of the terms and conditions incorporated in Clause 2(10) of the original deed of lease dated May 5, 1977. In view of violation of the terms of lease deed by the petitioner, I am constrained to hold that the petitioner has no right to seek permission from the respondent no.3 for transfer of the said property in favour of one Arpit Jain. So, I do not find any merit in this present wit application. However, the petitioner is entitl