SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1084

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
M/s. Savin World Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
IA No. CAN 1 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 8556 of 2018), CAN 2 of 2020, CAN 3 of 2021, CAN 4 of 2021, CAN 5 of 2022 in WPA No. 17656 of 2016
Decided On : 05-07-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv., Mr. D.N. Sharma, Mr. Arindam Guha, Ms. Arpita Dey.
For the SJDA : Mr. Anirban Ray, Mr. Raja Saha, Mr. Sanjoy Mukherjee.

A lessee's option to renew a lease must be honored by the lessor, provided that the lessee has exercised the option in accordance with the terms of the lease deed and has paid the required fees and rent.

Headnote:

LEASE RENEWAL - SILIGURI AND JALPAIGURI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - WEST BENGAL TOWN AND COUNTRY (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1979, SECTIONS 5, 13, 14 - WEST BENGAL TOWN AND COUNTRY (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT) RULES, 2008, RULE 12 - BENGAL PUBLIC DEMANDS RECOVERY ACT, 1913, SECTION 3(6) - SUMMARY OF THE COURT'S DECISION ON LEASE RENEWAL DISPUTE AND RELATED ISSUES.

Fact of the Case:

A dispute arose between a private company and the Siliguri and Jalpaiguri Development Authority (SJDA) regarding the renewal of a lease for an amusement park and a multiplex. The initial lease was for 10 years with an option for renewal for another 11 years. The petitioners exercised the option for renewal and paid the entire arrear of rent with interest and Court fees on the basis of the lease rent for 21 years. However, the SJDA refused to renew the lease and demanded additional lease rent for the multiplex portion of the land.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the SJDA's refusal to renew the lease was illegal and arbitrary, as the petitioners had exercised their option for renewal in accordance with the lease deed. The court also held that the demand for additional lease rent was unjustified, as the petitioners had already paid the entire lease rent for 21 years.

Issues: 1. Whether the SJDA's refusal to renew the lease was legal and justified. 2. Whether the demand for additional lease rent was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the terms of the lease deed, which gave the petitioners the option to renew the lease for an additional 11 years. 2. The court also relied on the fact that the petitioners had exercised their option for renewal in accordance with the lease deed and had paid the entire arrear of rent with interest and Court fees on the basis of the lease rent for 21 years.

Final Decision: The court directed the SJDA to execute a formal letter in favor of the petitioners for renewal of the lease and to execute the commercial lease deed for 99 years in respect of 0.62 acres of land. The court also directed the SJDA to consider if any concession could be given to the petitioners regarding payment of lease rent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

JUDGMENT :

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

1. A long-standing dispute is going on between the petitioners and the respondents specially respondent no. 2, Siliguri and Jalpaiguri Development Authority.

2. The petitioner no. 1 is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Proforma respondent no. 4 is practically the predecessor Company of the petitioner no. 1. On the basis of a notice floated by SJDA on 16th June, 2005 for granting lease for 21 years of a piece of land measuring about 14 acres for construction of an amusement park in Siliguri, the petitioner no. 1 became the successful bidder. However, lease deed was executed and registered in respect of 9.2 acres of land on 26th September, 2006 for initial 10 years with a clause that it will be automatically renewed for another 11 years. Schedule ‘B’ of the said lease deed being the payment schedule refers to 84 installments meaning thereby the said lease was contemplated to be executed even initially for 21 years. On the same day, another agreement was executed for providing 2.5 acres of land in favour of petitioner no. 1 by the respondent no. 2.

3. Since the respondent no. 2 could not deliver possession of remaining 4.8 acres of land and also no lease deed was executed in respect of 2.5 acres of land, on 29th October, 2010 SJDA proposed to grant commercial lease for a period of 99 years in respect of 0.62 acres of land. Petitioners agreed to such proposal and paid entire consideration money. However, till date no lease deed has been executed by SJDA in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, there was a dispute between the petitioners and SJDA on payment of lease rent for some period of time the petitioners stopped payment of lease rent and claimed adjustment. Since adjustment was not granted the writ petition is filed in the year 2016. During the pendency of the writ petition, however, the parties were engaged in conversation between each other so that some amicable settlement could be arrived at. In the meantime, entire world affected with the dreaded pandemic in the name of covid. The city of Siliguri was also no exception. It continued from 2020 till March, 2022. All establishments including amusement park, multiplex even the Government and private offices and other establishments were closed during the period. As there was no business in respect of the said amusement park and the multiplex the petitioners prayed for concession for covid period from SJDA. However, it was turned down.

4. At the end of the day the petitioners found that they require to run the amusement park and multiplex. Therefore, they deposited entire amount due towards payment of lease rent by issuing several cheques with interest without prejudice.

5. Under this backdrop, the petitioners made the following prayers:-

    (a) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondents to act in accordance with law;

(b) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue declaring that the purported demand raised by the State respondents for claiming the license fees for development, operation and management of amusement park at Dagapur, Siliguri including the demand dated October 11, 2012, May 14, 2014 and April 8, 2016 are illegal, arbitrary, perverse and void;

(c) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the State respondents either by themselves or by their men, agents and assigns to quash, rescind, cancel and/or set aside the purported demand raised by the State respondents for deposition of license rent/license fees for development, operation and management of the amusement park at Dagapur, Siliguri including the demand notice dated October 11, 2012, May 14, 2014 and April 8, 2016;

(d) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue declaring that the State respondents and/or their men, agents, assigns and/or representatives are not entitled to make any demand for additional lease rent in respect of the Cineplex portion covering 0.62 acres of land situated at Dagapur, S

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top