AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the letter dated October 4, 2016 and July 14, 2017 (Annexure P-11 and Annexure P-14 to the writ application respectively).by which the lease agreement between the petitioners and the respondent No.1 was terminated and by which the petitioners were called upon to deliver up possession of the land in question in favour of the respondent No.1.
The petitioner no.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner no.2 is one of the directors of the said company (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-Company).The petitioner-Company entered into lease agreement with the respondent No.1 on June 15, 2006 in connection with land measuring 5 acres in plot No.100(P) under MouzaNamobandh Sitarampur, Police Station Barjora in the district of Bankura on the basis of the terms and conditions incorporated in the lease deed.
It appears from the terms incorporated in paragraph 2(x) of the lease deed that the lease agreement can be terminated by the lessor if the lessee company does not utilise the land in question for a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the lease deed.
The petitioner-Company obtained land from the respondent no.1 for setting up of Ferro Alloys Rolling Mills Unit and Induction Furnace Unit.
The lease agreement was terminated by the respondent no.1 by letter dated October 4, 2016 on the ground that the petitioner-Company did not utilise the land within the stipulated period of 10 years and the wilful inaction on the part of the petitioner- Company in fulfilling its contractual obligation compelled the respondent no.1 to terminate the lease deed.
By letter dated July 14, 2017 issued by the respondent no.2, the petitioner-Company was asked to deliver up peaceful and vacant possession of the land in question in favour of the respondent no.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter.
Mr.Majumdar, learned counsel representing the petitioneRs.submits that the petitioner-Company has already obtained necessary licence and permission from the concerned authority to make the factory operational and the second unit, i.e, Induction Furnace Unit has already started operation and 30 people are engaged in running the said factory.
By referring to the terms incorporated in paragraph 2(x) of the lease deed, Mr.Majumdar submits that the petitioner-Company has already utilised the land and the construction work is in progress and as such, termination of the lease agreement is not in accordance with the terms incorporated in the lease deed.
On the other hand, Mr.Banerjee, learned counsel representing the respondents, submits that the petitioner-Company did not utilise the land for more than 9 years after execution of the lease deed.
He further submits that the attempt on the part of the petitioner-Company to obtain licence and permission from various authorities immediately before expiry of the lease agreement clearly indicates the intention of the petitioner-Company not to utilise the land for the purpose for which it was obtained from the respondent No.1.
By referring to various documents annexed to the writ application, Mr.Banerjee demonstrates that the petitioner-Company obtained permission and licence mostly after expiry of the period of the lease deed and as such, the petitioner-Company is not entitled to enjoy the leasehold interest of the land in question.
Admittedly, the lease deed was executed between the petitionerCompany and the respondent No.1 on June 15, 2006 and the period of 10 years lapsed on June 14, 2016.
The letter was issued by the respondent no.2 in favour of the petitioner-Company on October 4, 2016 by way of termination of the lease agreement between the petitioner- Company and by calling upon the petitioner-Company to deliver up possession of the land in question in favour of the respondent no.1.
Almost after 6 months the petitioner-Company gave reply to the said notice on April 30, 2017 (Annexure P-13 to the writ application).It appears from the said reply that the petitioner-Company obtained trade licence from the municipal authority after expiry of period of 10 years from the date of execution of the lease deed.
The petitioner-Company also obtained licence from the concerned Gram Panchayat after expiry of 10 years from the date of execution of the lease deed.
Even the certificate from the Pollution Control Board was received by the petitioner- Company on August 18, 2016, that is, 2 months after the date of expiry of the lease deed.
On my query Mr.Majumdar submits that the petitioner-Company has sought for permission for construction of the structure of the factory on the land only during the month of January or February, 2017.
This indicates that the petitioner-Company did not even bother to obtain permission from the concerned authority for construction of structure of the factory on the land in question during the period of 10 years from the date of execution of the lease deed.
In view of the fact that the petitioner-Company did not obtain licence and permission from the concerned authority for construction of building of the factory within a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the lease deed, I am unable to accept the contentions made on behalf of the petitionerCompany that the second unit of the factory is now functional.
The utter inaction on the part of the petitioner-Company to obtain permission from the concerned authority for the purpose of construction of building of the factory on the land in question within the stipulated period of 10 years from the date of execution of lease deed, leads me to hold that the petitioner-Company did not utilise the land in question within the stipulated period of 10 years from the date of execution of the lease deed.
As a result, I cannot persuade myself to interfere with the impugned letters under challenge in the writ petition.
The writ application is, thus, dismissed.