Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 832
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
BISWANATH RATH, J.
Nayana Sahoo - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha represented through the Secretary, Industries Department & others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No. 3049 of 2016
Decided On : 11-11-2016
For the Petitioner: M/s. C. Nayak & R.Nayak.
For the Opp. Parties : M/s. G. Mukharjee, A.Ch. Panda, S.D.Ray, S.Priyadarsini & S. Sahoo
Violation of lease agreement conditions can lead to eviction, and non-compliance with natural justice claims may be rejected if serious violations are involved.
Headnote:
EUO Act - Industrial Lease Agreement - Clause 32 - OPP (EUO) Act, 1972 - [Clause 32 of the lease agreement] - [OPP (EUO) Act, 1972, Clause 3 and 12] - The court discussed the provisions of Clause 32 of the lease agreement, which allowed the lessee to continue occupation on payment of fine, and the violations of Clause 3 and 12 of the agreement. The court found that the petitioner had violated the conditions of the lease agreement and was liable to be evicted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a promoter of an industrial unit, failed to utilize the leased land as per the lease agreement and was involved in subletting and encroachment activities. The IDCO initiated eviction proceedings, and the petitioner sought relief through a writ petition and appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had violated the lease agreement conditions and was liable to be evicted. The court also rejected the petitioner's claim of non-compliance with natural justice in the eviction order.
Issues: Alleged lack of opportunity of hearing and violation of lease agreement conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's violations of the lease agreement conditions led to the eviction order, and the claim of non-compliance with natural justice was unfounded.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their respective costs.
JUDGMENT :
Biswanath Rath, J.
In filing the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 26.12.2015 passed in OPP Appeal No.1 of 2005 confirming the order dated 4.5.2012 passed by the Estate Officer involving a proceeding against the petitioner under OPP (EUO) Act, 1972 and the communication dated 1.5.2012 in the proceeding bearing No.HO-EUO-1158 of 2012, also seeking a declaration that the locking of the petitioner’s establishment dated 17.6.2014 is illegal, further for a declaration that the order passed by the Estate Officer as well as the letter referred to hereinabove are not binding on the petitioner on the premises of acceptance of ground rent on 21.2.2014.
2. Facts as involved in the writ petition are that the petitioner as the promoter of M/s. Shreeram Motors took over the industrial assets of M/s. Reliance Motors over Plot No.166/D, measuring an area of Ac.0.69 decimals in Mancheswar Industrial Estate for the balance of the lease period for establishment of a Repairing & Servicing Unit of Automobiles on the terms and conditions already there in respect of the allottee entering into an agreement earlier. Acceptance of terms and conditions was drawn by virtue of a lease deed with the petitioner being executed on 13.1.2005. As per the terms, the petitioner was required to install machinery and start industrial activities over the disputed land within a period of 12 months from the date of allotment. As the petitioner failed to utilize the land for the purpose under the lease agreement and further misutilised the land by way of subletting to various units for running medicine shop, telephone booth encroaching IDCO land and also encroaching IDCO road by illegally allowing parking of heavy vehicles thereby creating obstruction in the normal traffic in the locality, involving all these, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.4.2005. For not receiving the response in due time, IDCO authority cancelled the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner and asked the petitioner to hand over the Industrial plot free from all encumbrances within 15 days with a liberty to go for appeal against the cancellation order. Since the petitioner did not give the vacant possession of the Industrial plot, the Corporation applying provisions in OPP (EUO) Act, 1972 initiated an eviction proceeding before the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer on disposal of the original proceeding passed the order of eviction against the petitioner giving the petitioner 15 days more time to vacate the land. Petitioner’s failing to give possession of the leased land on her own, eviction drive was undertaken on 17.6.2014 evicting the petitioner taking over the leased property to IDCO’s custody. Petitioner contended that being aggrieved by the high handed action of the IDCO authority, the petitioner approached this Court in filing writ petition and this Court though did not incline to interfere in the matter but finding the petitioner having the appeal remedy under the OPP (EUO) Act, 1972, directed the petitioner to file appeal before the appropriate forum. As a consequence, the petitioner filed OPP Appeal No.1 of 2015. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 26.12.2015 under Annexure-3.
3. Assailing the impugned orders, petitioner taking resort to Clause-11 and Clause 32 of the agreement contended that in the event the lessee is liable to be evicted, the lesser may be in his discretion continued the allotted property in the occupation of the lessee on payment of such fine by the lessee, as may be decided by the lesser and in such case, as if there is no eviction of the lessee and claimed that even though the eviction order was passed on 4.5.2012 and was handed over to the petitioner at a belated stage on 22.7.2014 but by this time the opposite parties have accepted the ground rent from the petitioner. It is contended by Sri Nayak that under the above circumstances, the petitioner gets protection of Clause 32 and shall be dee
