Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
Continental Chemical Corporation Limited & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Limited & Ors. – Respondents
WPO 2021 of 2022
Decided On : 23-06-2023
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTE - WEST BENGAL GOVERNMENT (TENANCY REGULATION) ACT, 1976 - SECTION 6, 10, 12 - ARREARS OF RENT - LEASE DEED EXECUTION - SPECIAL SCHEME FOR OLD AND EXISTING ENTREPRENEURS - DISCRIMINATION - ARTICLE 14 - COURT HELD THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY EQUITABLE RELIEF DUE TO THEIR CONDUCT AND DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a partnership firm and its partner, challenged a communication from the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (the Corporation) asking them to comply with orders dated 4.5.2015 and 29.5.2015 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation and to execute and register a lease deed as mentioned in the said orders with immediate effect. The petitioners claimed that they should be given some relief from payment of arrears of charges as they are old and existing entrepreneurs of the Industrial Estate and that they are entitled to a Special Scheme introduced by the Corporation for such entrepreneurs.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners had not paid the rent of the Plots since August, 2014, despite several notices from the Corporation. The Court also found that the petitioners had failed to execute the lease deed even after repeated directions from the Corporation. The Court held that the petitioners' status as an existing entrepreneur was considered every time they went before the Corporation, but they still failed to pay the arrears or execute the lease deed.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief from payment of arrears of charges as old and existing entrepreneurs of the Industrial Estate? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the Special Scheme introduced by the Corporation for old and existing entrepreneurs? 3. Whether the petitioners have been discriminated against by the Corporation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners' defense of being an old and existing entrepreneur loses relevance in the face of their staunch resistance to pay the arrears for almost 10 years. The Court also held that the petitioners' failure to execute a lease deed in spite of repeated direction for such, is also wholly unreasonable. 2. The Court held that the petitioners' reliance on the Minutes dated 13.10.2020 is misplaced since the alleged benefit of the Special Scheme for old and existing entrepreneurs was made conditional upon previous dues being cleared. The Court held that the writ petitioners do not qualify for the said scheme as they failed to clear the arrears and hence remained a defaulter also in terms of the earlier order passed by the Managing Director on 6.4.2015 and 29.5.2015. 3. The Court held that the petitioners have not been able to make out any case of discrimination. The Court held that there is no evidence on record to show that other allottees have been given special treatment or benefits which have been denied to the petitioners.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
1. The petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm carrying on business from 2 Plots and 1 Shed at the Behala Industrial Estate, 620 Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata. The petitioner no. 2 is a partner of the petitioner no. 1. The respondents are the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Limited and its Chairman, Managing Director and other Officers.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by a communication from the respondent no. 1 Corporation dated 15.12.2021 whereby the petitioner no. 1 was asked to comply with orders dated 4.5.2015 and 29.5.2015 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation and to execute and register a lease deed as mentioned in the said orders with immediate effect. The first of the two orders appears to be that of 6.4.2015 (and not 4.5.2015) as would appear from the petitioners’ response to the same dated 29.4.2015 and the subsequent order was passed by the Corporation on 29.5.2015. The cumulative effect of the two orders is that the petitioners were directed to execute a fresh lease deed for the Plots occupied by the petitioners in the Behala Industrial Estate by 15.6.2015 by taking necessary steps in that regard. The Corporation was given the right to examine the arrears of dues of the petitioners and take steps against the petitioner no. 1 if the petitioner no. 1 failed to comply with the directions.
3. The petitioners’ case, as argued by the petitioner no. 2 appearing in person, is that the petitioners should be given some relief from payment of arrears of charges as the petitioner no. 2 is an old and existing entrepreneur of the Industrial Estate. The petitioners rely on a Minutes of meeting of the Corporation held on 13.10.2020 where the Chairman of the Corporation indicated that a Special Scheme would be introduced for old and existing entrepreneurs with long term lease for 75 years and a market price of Rs.30 lacs/katah as per valuation. The petitioners say that the petitioners are liable to get the concession available under the Scheme and that the Scheme provides for a mechanism for settlement of arrears of lease rent. The petitioners also say that the petitioners were not communicated with the quantum of arrears which was to be paid to the Corporation. The other contention is that the petitioners have been discriminated against and that the Corporation has given special concessions to certain other lessees who are on the same footing as that of the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Corporation relies on the proceedings filed by the petitioners including orders passed by the Court as also the petitioners failing to pay occupational charges for the Plots since August, 2014. Counsel submits that several of the issues raised have already been dealt with by an order dated 10.3.2015. It is further submitted that the points urged are governed by the contract between the parties and the Corporation. Counsel submits that the writ petition does not involve any public law element.
5. The undisputed facts, as would appear from the material placed before the Court, are as follows.
6. The petitioner no. 1 is presently in occupation of Shed no. 6/1, Plot no. 1/1 and Plot no 1/2 at the Behala Industrial Estate. The cumulative area of the 3 Plots is approximately 8000 sqft. Shed no. 6/1 was allotted to the petitioner no. 1 from 6.2.1984 - 5.2.1993. Plot no. 1/1 was let out to the petitioner no. 1 for 9 years from 6.7.1984 – 5.7.1993. Plot no. 1/2 was allotted to the petitioners on 8.8.1994 but was later cancelled since the petitioners could not produce a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. The petitioners filed a writ petition being WPO 426 of 1997 against such cancellation as well as for Plot no. 1/4A and an order was passed on 1.4.1997 directing status quo with regard to the possession for a period of 4 years.
7. The petitioners failed to pay the rent of the Plots namely 6/1, 1/1 and 1/2 as well as 1/4A fr
A party who fails to pay the arrears of rent or execute a lease deed as per the directions of the Court cannot claim any equitable relief.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of lease and sub-lease agreements, particularly Clause 10 and Clause 23, and the court's assertion of jurisdicti....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the expiration of a lease, suppression of material facts, and the effect of holding over under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were central....
Tenants under the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 are entitled to renewal of lease upon payment of arrears, and eviction requires proper notice.
The court affirmed that mere acceptance of rent does not imply lease renewal, allowing eviction under Article 226 when the lease has expired without mutual agreement for renewal.
The court established that acceptance of delayed payments by the State constituted a deemed extension of time for contract performance, reinforcing the obligation to execute lease deeds.
Government retains the right to cancel lease agreements for non-payment of rent and violations of established conditions under statutory regulations.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
