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

2023 Supreme(All) 2569

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRITINKER DIWAKER, C.J., ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
M/S Silverline Furnishing And Furnitures Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And 3 Others - Respondents
WRIT C NO. 23888 OF 2021.
Decided On : 16-11-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Kartikeya Saran,Bidhan Chandra Rai.
For the Respondents: C.S.C.,Aditya Bhushan Singhal.

The lessee is not obligated to pay premium and interest until actual physical possession of the leased land is delivered to them, emphasizing the authority's duty to provide possession first.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Allotment of leased land - The petitioner challenged the demands for interest and penal interest on premium and lease rent for a property not yet possessed. - The court found that actual physical possession of the property had not been granted to the petitioner, and therefore, demands raised by the authority were not justified. (Paras 21-24)

(B) Lessee's Obligations - The court emphasized that the lessee's obligation to pay interest arises only after the physical possession of the leased land has been handed over. (Paras 21-24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is a Special Purpose Company that sought to establish a residential township but faced hurdles regarding the physical possession of the land allotted. After several complications and non-response from the leasing authority, the lease was cancelled because of alleged non-payment and a change in shareholding. The petitioner contended that it was yet to receive actual possession of the entire leased land.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the cancellation of the lease and the demand for interest were unwarranted as the petitioner never received actual physical possession of the land. The authority failed to substantiate its claims of having handed over possession.

Issues: The primary issues included whether the petitioner was granted actual physical possession of the leased land and the justifiability of the authority's demand for payment during such time.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that because the actual physical possession was never given, the lessee was not liable for rental payments or interest obligations until possession was conferred. The authority's cancellation of the lease based on shareholding change was deemed unjustified.

Result: Both writ petitions are allowed; demand for interest set aside, and the cancellation of the lease is annulled, directing the authority to hand over possession.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioner's claims and yeida's actions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. petitioner's legal arguments and yeida's counterarguments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. arguments on possession and compliance highlighted. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17)
5. court's analysis regarding possession and cancellation of lease. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. court observations on fulfillment of requirements. (Para 23)
7. final decision on the writ petitions. (Para 24)

JUDGMENT

The above two writ petitions between the same set of parties involve identical facts. The Writ-C No. 26513 of 2022 has been filed assailing an order dated 27.07.2022 passed by YEIDA cancelling the allotment as also the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner, during the pendency of the Writ-C No. 23888 of 2021. Both the writ petitions have been connected and thus are being decided together by a common order. The Writ-C No. 23888 of 2021 is treated as the leading petition and the facts involved therein are being considered to decide the controversy involved.

2. The writ petitioner which is a Special Purpose Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with the object and business of development of Residential Township, has approached this Court assailing the impugned notice dated 11.11.2020 issued by the Manager (Property), Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority/ Respondent No.4 to the extent it demands interest and penal interest on the premium and lease rent amount during the period physical possession of the leased land has not be given to it. A further prayer in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent YEIDA to not impose interest and penal interest on the premium and lease rent during the period physical and actual possession of the leased land is not handed over, and provide exemption from payment of the interest and penal interest on the premium and lease rent, hand over physical and actual possession of the lease land, execute an additional lease deed for the remaining area of the plot reserved and allotted to the petitioner under the reservation letter dated 30.03.2011 and allotment letter dated 22.12.2011 has been prayed for.

3. The facts shorn of unnecessary details leading up to filing of the instant writ petition are that the Respondent No.2 the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority hereinafter referred to as YEIDA in the year 2011 invited tender for setting up residential township from interested parties inter-alia for allotment of Plot No. TS-2 in Sector 18, Greater Noida for size approximately 100 acres under Scheme YEA-RT-03/2011. The tender rules permitted a Consortium of Companies to bid against the tender. A Consortium of M/s Amenite Builders and Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. and other Companies i.e. M/s PC Developers (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt. Ltd, M/s Dashmesh Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd, M/s Visitor Constructions Pvt. Ltd and M/s Mereton Infotech (Pvt) Ltd. applied against the tender invited depositing Rs.10 Lacs as processing fee and earnest money of Rs.10 crores on 20.3.2011. The Consortium offered the highest bid of Rs.4,735/- square meters and consequently a reservation letter dated 30.3.2011 was issued in favour of the Consortium by the respondent no.2 YEIDA. The total premium payable was Rs.1,91,62,54,500/- for an area of 40,4700 square meters land. The respondent no.2 required the Consortium to deposit 10% of the total premium as reservation money which worked out to Rs.19,16,25,450/-. Since a sum of Rs.10 crores stood deposited the Consortium deposited a sum of Rs.9,16,25,450/- on 28.4.2011. Thereafter the respondent no.2 issued the allotment letter dated 22.12.2011 stating therein that as per lease plan, an area of 287645 square meters was being allotted at the rate of Rs.5,023 per square meters. The remaining area of the plot no. TS-2, Sector 18, Greater NOIDA would be allotted as soon as land comes under possessi

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