Calcutta High Court
M/S Continental Chemical Corporation & ... vs W.B. Small Industrial Development ... on 10 March, 2015
Author: I. P. Mukerji
Bench: I. P. Mukerji
ORDER SHEET
WP NO.786 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
M/S CONTINENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION & ORS.
Versus
W.B. SMALL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD & ORS.
............
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI Date : 10th March, 2015.
Mr. Ashok Pincha...appearing [in person].
Mr. J. Kar, senior advocate, Mr. S. Sarkar...appear.
The Court : The subject matter of this writ application involves intricate disputes between the parties regarding termination of lease, creation of sub-lease, renewal of lease, fixation of rent etc. Very briefly, there was a lease agreement between the first respondent and one Mr. S. S. Agarwal in respect of plot no.1/1 and Shed no.6/1 at the Behala Industrial Estate. The writ petitioner was a sub- lessee under Mr. Agarwal, as alleged by Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appearing for the first respondent. Thereafter, Mr. Agarwal relinquished the lease and the writ petitioner came to be in possession of the above leased property.
It appears from the rent bills issued by the first respondent upto July 2014 that they had been accepting rent from the petitioner upto July 2014. After July 2014 they have stopped accepting rent. Whether the first respondent will take steps against the petitioner to evict them from the land or whether they would come to terms with the petitioner and grant them a fresh lease on revised terms or renew the existing lease in favour of the petitioner on altered terms and conditions are matters which should not engage the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from the fact that no element of public law is involved, there is a serious factual dispute between the parties. 2
But it appears that the writ petitioner is in possession of the leased property. It was doing business in chemicals. The petitioner wants to stop this business and start the business of manufacture of footwear. For this, they approximately 40 KW supply of electricity. CESC Ltd. is not supplying electricity to the writ petitioner, in the absence of consent from the first respondent.
I make it clear that on the existing facts the writ petitioner is entitled to supply of the said electricity irrespective of the consent of the first respondent, if otherwise they are entitled to such supply. CESC Ltd. will afford such supply ignoring the absence of consent of the first respondent, within four weeks from date.
Without prejudice to the above on the submission of Mr. Ashok Pincha appearing [in person] that a chance be given to him to convince the Chairman/Managing Director of the first respondent to favourably alter certain terms and conditions with regard to grant or renewal of the lease in favour of the writ petitioner, I direct that the writ petitioner will be at liberty to make a representation to the Chairman/Managing Director, who will consider the same after giving a very short hearing to the writ petitioner and communicate his decision within eight weeks of making the written representation.
I make it clear that this order will not prevent the first respondent to take steps against the petitioner that are available to them in law, after consideration of the representation if it is made by 24th March, 2015.
Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(I. P. MUKERJI, J.) Pkd. A.R.[C.R.]