Manthan Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd vs Bengal Chemical And Pharmaceuticals

The petitioner, a private limited company, is a tenant under Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking of National repute in respect of premises no. 6, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700 013 comprising of 6809 sq. ft of carpet area as per agreement of tenancy executed by and between the parties on 31st March, 2016. In the agreement, monthly lease rent was fixed at Rs. 2,38,315/- at the rate of Rs.35/- per sq. ft. for a period of thirty six months commencing from the first day of January, 2016 to 31st of December, 2018. After the expiry of the said period, the opposite party initiated a proceeding under sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 for eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner, on the other hand, called upon the opposite party to place the dispute in arbitration as per Clause 25 of the Agreement for Tenancy executed by and between the parties. The petitioner further unilaterally suggested a name as Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties, though, prima facie, as per the agreement, the petitioner has no authority to suggest any name as Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in view of specific Clause enumerated in Clause 25 of the said agreement. Clause 25 of the agreement runs as follows :

"All disputes and differences relating to this Agreement, which cannot be amicably resolved by the parties, shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Managing Director of the Lessor (emphasis supplied) and his verdict shall be final and binding to all the arbitration shall be conduced under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act".

The eviction proceeding against the petitioner company is pending before the Estate Officer. Hearing of the said eviction proceeding was fixed on 19th March, 2019. On that date, the petitioner filed an application for adjournment on the ground that the Petitioner Company have moved this Court under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. The petitioner also filed another application before the Estate Officer to refer the dispute, being the proceeding under sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 before the Arbitrator as per the agreement.

The Estate Officer passed an order allowing the prayer for adjournment on condition to make certain payment, which is lying due by the petitioner within specific time-frame. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:

"Having heard the submissions of both the parties and considering the matter it is hereby directed to Shri Gurmeet Singh and Shri Sudip Kr. Ghosh of M/s. Manthan Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. to pay the I) Occupational Charges 50% of the arrear rent of Rs. 4408386/- and Arrear Electricity charges of an amount of Rs. 1158948/-within 7 days and balance 5% of arrear rent by 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the order ii) 50% of arrear electricity charges of Rs. 3046724/- within 3 weeks and balance 50% within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. iii) 100% of the arrear property tax of Rs. 1252696/- as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 29/11/2014 within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Further the appellant shall continue to pay the current electricity charges. The respondent company shall be at liberty to disconnect the electricity supply to the portion under the occupation of the appellant in case the appellant fails to pay the electricity charges. The aforesaid amount's must be paid to BCPL by Demand Draft/Pay Order or through RTGS/NEFT etc."

In the instant revision, the petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the aforesaid order passed by the Estate Officer directing the petitioner to make payment of occupational charges, arrear electricity charges and arrear property tax within a stipulated period of time.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. - Vs- Federal Motors (P) Ltd., reported in 2005 (1) SCC 705 clearly observed that a statutory tenant is permitted to occupy the tenanted premises on payment of occupational charges as per the present market rate till he is evicted by due process of law. The principle laid down in Atma Ram ( supra) set the question at rest regarding the tenant's obligation to pay occupational charges to the opposite party when his tenancy is terminated.

In the instant case, it is not disputed that the tenancy of the petitioner has been terminated as per the agreement. Secondly, a proceeding under sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is pending. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot raise any dispute with regard to a direction passed by a competent authority for payment of occupational charges. In the instant application, I do not find any allegation made by the petitioner disputing the amount of money which has been charged upon the petitioner to pay. Only contention of the petitioner is that the Estate Officer had no authority to pass the impugned order in view of the fact that the agreement enjoins an arbitration clause and the petitioner made an application under section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of an Arbitrator and thirdly the petitioner also prayed to refer the dispute relating to eviction proceeding before the Arbitrator who has not been admittedly appointed as yet.

I have heard Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, learned advocate for the petitioner, perused the tenancy agreement, the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer and other documents annexed with the application and considered.

I do not find any merit in the instant application so that the application may be admitted for hearing. Accordingly, the instant revision is summarily dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.