JUDGMENT :

Defects pointed by the office are ignored.

2. Since all these appeals arise out of the same impugned Judgment, they have been heard together and they are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation, (herein after referred to as ‘J.T.D.C.’).

4. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 08.01.2019, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P.(C) No. 3140 of 2018 and analogous matters, whereby the writ applications have been dismissed by the Writ Court, inter alia, on the ground that the writ petitioners had made suppression of the fact that they were given notice before the impugned action. However, at the very outset, it may be made clear that in two of the writ applications it was stated that notice was given to them, whereas in two of the writ applications it was stated that the impugned action against them was without any notice.

5. The facts of this case, as revealed from the impugned Judgment and the record, are that the appellants herein had been allotted shops in Hotel Natraj Bihar Complex, at Deoghar, by the then Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., pursuant to an advertisement published in the year 1996. The unregistered agreement of lease was executed between the Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Patna, and the respective petitioners/their predecessors in interest, pursuant whereto they were running the shops in the said Hotel Natraj Bihar Complex, on the payment of the lease amount. After the bifurcation of the State of Bihar in the month of November, 2000, the respondent J.T.D.C., has stepped into the shoes of the Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation.

6. The impugned Judgment shows that the lease agreement between the Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., and the appellants writ petitioners, was for a period of sixty-six years, based on certain terms and conditions. Condition No.4, stipulated about making the payment of the municipal charges by the lessees, and condition No. 9 prohibited the lessees from transferring or sub-letting the property or any part thereof, to any other person/firm, without prior permission of the lessor. Condition No. 20 in the lease agreement stated as follows:-

“If it comes to the notice of the lessor at any stage during the lease period that the lease of the aforesaid property has been obtained by misrepresentation or misstatement or suppression of the fact or fraud or if the lessee violates any of the terms and conditions of this lease agreement or if he/she fails to clear all his/her dues including statutory charges/dues payable to the lessor or any other competent authority/authorities within three months of the same failing as dues, then the lessor shall have rights to take any or all action as stated hereunder:

(i) The lease may be terminated/canceled without any compensation to the lessee.

(ii) The lessee shall be summarily evicted and expenses incurred in getting the lessee evicted including penal interest thereon shall be recoverable from the lessee and dues.

(iii) All the properties of the lessee situated in and around the said leased property shall be seized and disposed off by the lessor and the entire proceeds shall be forfeited irrespective of the amount.

(iv) The lessee shall be blacklisted and shall not be allowed to take part in future in any settlement process of any property of the lessor.”

7. According to the case of the appellants, the respondent J.T.D.C., came up with an order of cancellation of their lease agreements, under the aforesaid Clause 20 thereof, for the alleged violations of the terms and conditions Nos. 4 and 9 of the lease agreements. Though the petitioners in two writ applications stated on oath that no notice was given to them prior to the cancellation of allotment, but this apparently is a false statement, as notice was issued to them pri