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

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1374

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Shailesh Kumar, son of Late Jainandan Prasad - Petitioner 
Versus 
The Steel Authority of Indian Limited, through its Chairman and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 4007 of 2020
Decided On : 05-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajit Kumar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate

A lease termination based on alleged subletting without notice can only be adjudicated in accordance with the Public Premises Act, emphasizing the necessity for evidence and proper jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - Lease Agreement - Termination of lease based on alleged violation including subletting without prior consent - No show cause notice issued - Writ petition filed challenging the termination order - Court finds disputed questions of fact, directs appropriate proceedings under the Act to continue. (Paras 8, 16, 23, 39, 40)

(B) Natural Justice - Allegations of connivance with third parties leading to termination - Court emphasizes that the validity of action requires examination of contract terms and the parties' conduct, thus not suitable for writ jurisdiction. (Paras 11, 37, 39)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contesting the arbitrary termination of a lease for subletting premises without consent, necessitating substantial investment in construction, seeks relief under writ jurisdiction citing violation of natural justice.

Findings of Court:
Termination upheld as valid after finding disputed facts related to lease agreement interpretation; Writ jurisdiction not applicable due to nature of disputes.

Issues: The legitimacy of lease termination, adherence to procedural fairness, and applicability of lease terms regarding subletting.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled against the maintainability of the writ petition, citing that resolution of disputes and validity of the termination ought to be adjudicated in the context of the related Act, not under writ powers.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks relief against lease termination. (Para 2)
2. petitioner argues improper lease termination without notice. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. respondents assert contract nature limits court review. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 18)
4. arguments presented by both parties regarding lease terms. (Para 15 , 17)
5. court observations on the interpretation of lease and relevant law. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 38)
6. court finds evidence of subletting in dispensation of lease. (Para 23 , 24)
7. court concludes interpretation issues require factual adjudication. (Para 30 , 32 , 36)
8. conclusions on the maintainability of the writ petition. (Para 37)
9. writ not maintainable due to private contract nature. (Para 39 , 40)
10. writ petition dismissed; authorities to decide pending matters. (Para 41 , 42)

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

This amended writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

“(a) For quashing and setting aside the letter with Ref. No. TA/LRA/2020-1081dated 27.10.2020 (Annexure-13) vide which the Respondent Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant has terminated the indenture of Lease dated 13.07.2000 issued in favour of the petitioner with a prospective date i.e. 90th day from the date of service of the said letter, arbitrarily and in violation of the settled principles of law without issuing any show cause notice or without giving any opportunity of hearing.

(b) For showing cause the Respondent No. 4 as to whether they can take the harass and disproportionate action of termination of lease of the petitioner considering that the lease pertained to only a piece of barren and vacant land whereupon, as per the terms of the lease and as per the sanctioned plan by the Respondents, the petitioner has constructed commercial- cum- residential buildings (G+2) by investing huge amount of money which if taken away so abruptly and unmindfully, cause immense personal loss to the petitioner and may amount to profiteering so far Respondents are concerned.

(c) For further directing the Respondents to take decision and/or to pass appropriate orders for remedying the alleged breach, if any, which has taken place in view of the ambiguities in Clause 6 and 15 of the lease deed which otherwise also is condonable on the basis of permission of the Respondents, thus remediable in any case and for direction upon the Respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the landed/constructed property in concern.

(d) During pendency of the instant writ petition, the letter of termination dated 27.10.2020 (Annexure-14) issued by Respondent No.4 may be stayed or status quo may be granted by this Hon'ble Court.

(e) Further issuance of writ(s)/orders(s)/direction(s) for quashing of letter no. TA/LRA/2022-1805 dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure-15) issued by Respondent company and notice dated 20.05.2022 u/s 4(a)/7 (3) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act issued by the Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel City (Annexure-16 & 16/1).”

2. The matter arises out of termination of lease.

Arguments of the petitioner.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed the order of termination of the lease as contained in Annexure-13 of the writ petition. The lease is admittedly dated 13.07.2000 with respect to plot No. GA-4 in City Center, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City and the date of termination is 27.10.2020. The lease is between Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant and the petitioner.

4. By referring to the termination order dated 27.10.2020, the learned senior counsel has submitted that on the face of the document, it is apparent that the lease has been terminated on the ground that during the course of investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranchi, the premises was found to have been sublet and it has been terminated with further allegation that there is criminal conspiracy amongst the petitioner and those persons to whom the premi

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