In the recent legal judgement by the Supreme Court of India, a resolution has been reached in the Maniktala Main Road Lease Renewal Case. The case involves the dispute between the estate owner and the lessee over the renewal terms of the lease agreement for premises on Maniktala Main Road, Kolkata. The court’s decision will have significant implications on the property rights and contractual agreements of the parties involved. Stay updated on this landmark ruling by following #LegalJudgement #CalcuttaHighCourt #LeaseRenewal.
Facts
- The High Court quashed the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer on 01.10.2018 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
- A meeting was held on 20.5.2014 to discuss the renewal of lease at the request of the appellant.
- The Estate Officer issued a show cause notice to the lessee on 23.05.2018 for non-payment of damages and interest.
- The lessee filed a writ petition challenging the notice in the High Court of Calcutta.
- The premises in question were a public property under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
- The Estate Officer proceeded with the eviction proceedings as no stay was granted by the Division Bench.
- The final order assessed damages and interest at Rs.4,61,63,624 payable by the lessee.
- The new Estate Officer was appointed in compliance with the Division Bench order dated 17.01.2018.
- The lessee filed an appeal against the eviction order, which was dismissed by the High Court.
- The lease rent was subject to a 10% increase every two years as per the terms agreed upon.
- The lessee was running a school in the premises since 01.06.2014 without paying rent, accruing a total of approximately Rs.4.61 crores in dues to the appellant.
- Single Judge of High Court dismissed the writ petition on 19.06.2018 by extending the time to file show cause notices.
- Earlier round of litigation in WP No.28002(W) of 2017 was dismissed on 22.11.2017 by the Single Judge.
- Respondent No.1 challenged the order dated 22.11.2017 in MAT No.2023 of 2017 before the High Court of Calcutta.
- Division Bench disposed of the appeal on 17.01.2018, directing Union of India to appoint a new Estate Officer and for Respondent No.1 to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- towards damages with Appellant No.1 within five weeks.
Also Read: High Court’s Decision on Large Gala Allotment Dispute: Supreme Court Verdict
Arguments
- The learned counsel for the appellants argued that Original Name was not given sufficient opportunity in the eviction proceedings.
- The quantum of damages fixed by the Estate Officer was deemed arbitrary by the counsel for Original Name.
- Original Name is justified in challenging the Estate Officer’s order before the High Court.
- The counsel for Original Name argued that the High Court was correct in setting aside the eviction order due to the previous Estate Officer’s involvement in the proceedings.
- The rent increase from Rs.21/- per sq. ft. to Rs.50/- per sq. ft. was deemed unreasonable without any explanation.
- The respondent has always been willing to pay a fair rent, not one unilaterally imposed.
- The respondent has demonstrated good faith by depositing Rs.25,00,000/- as per court order and paying electricity charges.
Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash
Analysis
- The order will not delve into the merits of the arguments presented by the parties
- The focus is on the proposed order
- The order aims to remain impartial towards the parties’ contentions
Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal
Decision
- The lease had ended on 31.05.2014 by efflux of time.
- Appellant directed to pay Rs.2,50,000 per month as damages for use and occupation from June 2014 to May 2018.
- Appellant permitted to withdraw Rs.25,00,000 deposited by Respondent No.1.
- Arrears payable by Respondent No.1 to be paid in three equal installments, with the first installment due by 31 August 2019.
- Appellant also allowed to withdraw electricity charges deposited by Respondent No.1.
- Failure to deposit any installment will result in forfeiting the right to defense and consideration.
- The High Court order remitting the matter to the Estate Officer for reconsideration is maintained.
- The matter involves a premises in Maniktala Main Road, Kolkata, occupied by Respondent No.1.
Case Title: BENGAL CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Vs. AJIT NAIN
Case Number: C.A. No.-005314-005315 / 2019
