The existence of a concluded contract requires a definite offer, acceptance, and consideration, and the absence of such elements precludes the formation of a binding agreement.

JUDGMENT

Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.

1. By this intra-court appeal, writ petitioner has challenged order of the learned Single Judge dated 9th of November, 2022 dismissing WPA No. 21399 of 2007 on contest.

2. Appellant had filed the writ petition with the plea that International Engineering & Construction Co. of which the appellant is one of the Director was granted lease by the respondent Kolkata Port Trust Authority for a period of 30 years with effect from 1st of February, 1972 for an area of 1271.659 sq. m in respect of the land situated at one Nimak Mahal Road, Kolkata. The lease agreement was executed on 4th of June, 1973 for a period of 30 years with effect from 1st of February, 1972. Further plea was raised that before the expiry of the lease period, negotiations were started with the Chairman of the KoPT for extending the lease for a further period of 99 years. There was certain unauthorized construction, therefore, the authority of KoPT instructed the appellant for demolition of the construction and the same was demolished and the penalty amount was also deposited. From the writ petition, the appellant had referred to certain correspondence between the parties and had submitted that there was offer and acceptance, therefore, concluded contract between the parties had come into existence for extending lease period. The appellant was issued the quit notice dated 8th of June, 2007 by the Land Manager (I/C), KoPT with the instruction to quit the land by 12th of December, 2007. The appellant was also sent the demand notice by the Land Manager, KoPT vide bill dated 31st of August, 2007 for a sum of Rs. 12, 10, 844/- on the ground of unauthorized occupation of the land from the period from 1st of February, 2002 to 31st of August, 2007. Being aggrieved with the same, appellant had filed the writ petition with the prayer to command the respondents to withdraw the quit notice dated 8th of June, 2007 and demand notice dated 31st of August, 2007 and also seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to execute 99 years lease with the appellant.

3. Learned Single Judge by order under appeal has dismissed the writ petition on reaching to the following conclusion:

i. There was no concluding agreement between the parties for execution of a fresh lease deed of 99 years or otherwise between the parties.

ii. The communication sent by the KoPT dated 14th of January, 2003 has been found to be a counter proposal to the appellant with regard to 99 years of lease for all practical purposes.

iii. Though the communications were going on for the purpose of entering into fresh lease deed for 99 years but there was no acceptance on the part of the KoPT.

iv. From the end of the Government of India, no acceptance to any proposal has been issued but nearly a fresh offer has been suggested incorporating the municipal tax.

v. In the absence of a concluded contract at any stage, there was no scope of directing a performance of such still-born contract.

vi. There was no consensus ad idem between the parties with regard to grant/renewal of a fresh lease deed to the appellant.

vii. As on the date of issuance of the quit notice, the original lease between the parties had already expired on 31st of January, 2002, i.e., on efflux of 30 years after the date of its commencement on 1st of February, 1972.

viii. Since the lease had expired with the efflux of time, therefore, the definition of unauthorized occupation as per the PP Act was attracted as undisputedly the premises are public premises.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that there was offer and acceptance, therefore, concluded contract exist between the parties for extension of lease. In support of his submission, he has referred to various exchanges of communications between the parties and has also placed reliance upon Section 10 of the Contract Act, 1872 (for short, ‘Act of 1