Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4) The original Licensee indemnifies and saves harmless the Corporation against any loss or damage that may be caused to the Corporation in consequences of this Agreement or the permission granted to it as aforesaid.

5) The stamp duty payable under this tripartite agreement shall be borned and paid by the New Licensees wholly and exclusively."

4] Even the petitioner did not apply for passing of building construction plan for a long time, after execution of the said tripartite agreement. Some time in the year 2016, the petitioner applied for NOC. The CIDCO refused to grant such clearance without the petitioner agreeing to pay the additional premium for delay in commencement and completion of the construction. The CIDCO would claim such additional charges as per its new policy dated 9.5.2002. This policy envisaged collection of additional premium from the lessee, who fails to complete the 2-cwp-8389-17.doc construction within six years from the date of allotment of land. Relevant portion of this resolution reads as under:

"In New Towns _ New Aurangabad, New Nashik and New Nanded, while granting development permission and/or allowing transfer of plots leased out by CIDCO, if the lessee has not constructed building within the time period stipulated in Agreement to Lease, then for delay in construction, Additional Lease Premium is levied. As per B.R. No. 8031 dated 15.10.1999, lessees are allowed six years free time period for construction & completion of building without levying Addl. Lease Premium and, for delay beyond six years, Addl. Lease Premium is levied. The percentage of the amount of Additional Lease Premium has relation with the amount of land premium sanctioned in Agreement to Lease. For New Towns, the Board has approved from time to time the percentage of the amount of Additional Lease Premium as follows:"

5] The case of the petitioner is two folds. Firstly, according to the Counsel for the petitioner, the additional premium can be charged only on the completion of period of six years from the date of tripartite agreement dated 17.11.2011. He submitted that the Corporation is not justified in claiming the additional premium starting from 17.11.2011 itself. The second contention is that even after submission of the building plans, the CIDCO had not acted upon the same within reasonable period. The CIDCO for its own delay cannot claim the additional premium.

7] The facts are not seriously in dispute. As noted, the original lessee was granted the land by the CIDCO on the condition of commencement and completion of the construction within the specified periods. As per which, the construction had to be completed in three years. As per the policy decision of the CIDCO dated 9.5.2002, the additional premium at prescribed rates would be charged in case the construction is not completed within six years. Thus after granting moratorium of three years over and about the base period of the three years envisaged in the lease agreement, the liability for paying additional premium would commence. The original lessee had exposed himself for payment of such additional premium, 2-cwp-8389-17.doc which was actually paid at the time he exited the project. He projected the petitioner as the successor lessee. The CIDCO accepted such position and tripartite agreement was executed between three sides on 17.11.2011. This agreement clearly envisaged that the new licensee shall be substituted for the original licensee in the original agreement and shall have all the rights, obligations, and liabilities arising thereunder. Thus, the petitioner was not a fresh lessee of the CIDCO. The petitioner merely inherited the previous lease with all the continuing liabilities and obligations. The period of six years, therefore, was correctly computed from the original date of the lease and not the date of tripartite agreement. Quite apart from this plain interpretation of the terms of the tripartite agreement, even independently thereof, we are persuaded that the stand taken by the CIDCO is a reasonable one. Accepting the stand of the petitioner would enable a lessees to avoid utilisation of the CDICO land for six years and thereafter seek transfer in favour of a new lessee by paying a small transfer charge. The original lease envisaged termination of the lease and resumption of the land by CIDCO, if any breach of the condition was noticed. Had the CIDCO exercised this option and terminated the lease of the 2-cwp-8389-17.doc original lessee in the year 2011, the CIDCO could have allotted the same to a new lessee at the market rate prevailing in the year 2011. Whatever appreciation in the land prices between the year 2001 and 2011 was shared by the original lessee and the petitioner. Having done so, the petitioner must submit to the original lease conditions. He cannot seek a fresh period of six years for completion of constructions from the date of tripartite agreement.