Back
PRITINKER DIWAKER, ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Silverline Furnishing And Furnitures Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
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 pe
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.
The cancellation of a lease due to shareholding changes is unjustified when actual possession of leased land has not been delivered, invalidating claims for rents and penalties.
Authority must deliver physical possession of land to the allottee; failure to do so grants the right to zero period benefits under lease agreements.
Actual physical possession must be established for lease obligations; mere issuance of possession certificate is insufficient.
Development authorities must adhere to mandatory conditions regarding possession certificates; failure to comply invalidates lease rent claims and CIC charges deemed illegal must be refunded.
The court established that acceptance of delayed payments by the State constituted a deemed extension of time for contract performance, reinforcing the obligation to execute lease deeds.
Developers are entitled to waivers and extensions when failure to provide essential infrastructure, such as access roads, obstructs project execution, affirming obligations under lease agreements.
The court held that the lessee is entitled to the provision of an approach road as stipulated in the lease deed, justifying waivers of interest and zero period until compliance by the lessor.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
