Calcutta High Court
Kanak Projects Limited vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited on 3 February, 2014
Author: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee, Arijit Banerjee
ORDER SHEET
APO No. 314 of 2012
With
C.S. No. 440 OF 1985
E.C. No. 81 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
KANAK PROJECTS LIMITED
Versus
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE
And
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
Date : 3rd February, 2014.
Appearance :
Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Adv.
Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Arindam Ghosh, Adv.
Ms. S. Roy Chowdhury, Adv.
...for the appellant
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Sudip Pal Chowdhury, Adv.
...for the respondent.
The Court: The parties on principle agreed to have a workable solution. The matter was kept pending as the concerned person representing the appellant was out of town. Mr. Sudhir Prakash, Director of the appellant, is personally present. He has the authority to settle the controversy on behalf of the appellant. On the last occasion we asked the parties to re-fix the rent at Rs.50 per sq. feet 2 as on April 1, 2007 that the parties have agreed. The parties also agree on periodical increase of rent. The respondent would agree for 15 per cent increase in every five years as suggested by us. To that, the appellant is asking for three years interval. The respondent is ready and willing to keep six months rent as advance whereas Mr. Bachawat, appearing for the appellant would contend, one year's deposit is normal in all cases. The parties also agree on principle to have some interest chargeable on the differential amount that the respondent would have to pay to the appellant in terms of this order. They leave it to the Court as to fixation of rent. Thus, we come to a narrow campus. As to the period of interval for increase and the amount of advance, to strike a balance we accept Mr. Bachawat's suggestion for advance and Mr. Mitra's proposal on increase. Thus, the workable solution is finally settled as follows:
(i) There would be a fresh lease for 15 years on and from April 1, 2007;
(ii) The rent would be fixed at Rs.50 per sq. feet with 15 per cent increase in every five years interval;
(iii) The respondent would keep in advance one year's rent. Since such advance would be kept now, the advance would be calculated on the basis of the prevalent rate of rent payable now;
(iv) The parties have agreed, the respondent would hand over the peaceful and vacant possession on the expiry of the lease;
(v) The parties would file respective affidavits agreeing to the workable solution as recorded above. Such affidavits must be filed within two weeks from date.3
(vi) In case of non-filing of the affidavits on behalf of the appellant, the appeal would stand dismissed. In case of non-filing of the affidavits on behalf of the respondent, the appellant would be at liberty to mention the matter before this Court for appropriate order;
(vii) The arrear rents would be paid along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on and from the respective due dates until payments are made;
(viii) The differential rent would be paid by six equal monthly instalments payable on the fifteenth day of each English calendar month commencing from March, 2014. This would be in addition to the current rent that would be paid on the seventh day of each English calendar month commencing from March 7, 2014;
(ix) The appellant would be entitled to withdraw the deposit made by the respondent. The respondent would get credit for the same;
(x) The security deposit would be refunded on surrendering of possession without any interest.
(xi) The parties may have execution of a lease, if they so desire.
(xii) In default, the appellant would be entitled to take appropriate steps in accordance with law including execution of this order as a decree of this Court.
The respondent would be at liberty to enjoy the premises in question as they were doing earlier.
4
Mr. Mitra submits, the building would require repair whereas Mr. Bachawat assures, the landlord would take care of it. On filing of the affidavits as directed above, the order passed subsequently on December 24, 2013 in C.S. No. 231 of 2007 would stand recalled.
Upon affidavits being filed the suits being C.S. No. 440 of 1995 along with E.C. No. 81 of 2007 and C.S. No. 231 of 2007 would stand disposed of without any order as to costs.
(ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J.) (ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) akb/