Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Marshall with learned advocate Mr.Arpit Kapadia appearing for the respondent has urged that, it is a public premise, where, Chairman cannot act as a private person. In a hot haste to get it evicted, the actions have been taken. It is also to be seen that whether the breach is capable of being remedied. It is urged that, 21 years after the transfer of leasehold, the action has C/SCA/22942/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2023 been taken. It is the say of the learned counsel that the powers exercised are within a very few days in a hot haste, issuing a formal notice as a show cause notice. It is urged that on 09.04.1997 the lease was terminated within 20-21 days from the first order till the order of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal, where the respondents were directed to complete the construction on the plot. He also questioned that whether for determining the lease, all that was needed to be done at the end of the authority has been done or not. If not, it is easy for the authority to determine the lease on a very trivial or flimsy grounds. In a time bound manner, a resort is contemplated, quite a few have breached, however, no action has been taken against them. It is also pointed out that, Mr. Ram Naik,the Member of Parliament, wrote to the Ministry, as many complaints received against the authority. There are guidelines issued which are forming part of the record floating these directions, C/SCA/22942/2006 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/02/2023 if any, action is taken, the same should not be permitted oblivious to two chances given by the High Court. He has urged that 36 months had been permitted for construction, there is no reasonableness in the same. The moment, reasonableness of time goes, the action must fail. The reasonable opportunity of correcting the breach has not been given. In totality his submissions are that the respondents have been treated unreasonably, three representations were made, which were decided almost verbatim and still rectified if opportunity is given. There is a clear discrimination in not considering the representations. There is no guideline that if lease is terminated/determined, it cannot be regularized. The alternative submission also is that, if the two parties are treated in dissimilar way, there is a need for the Court to intervene.