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
| 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
State of Gujarat and Others versus Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust and Others
Kerela State Electricity Board and Another Versus Kurien Em Kalathil and Others
Banatwala and Company versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another
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.
The court emphasized that eviction under the Public Premises Act requires subjective satisfaction of unauthorized occupation, ensuring fairness in administrative actions.
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 authority has the power to terminate a lease in case of breach, and a notice must be served before termination.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.