Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 Misc.app.181.18
Received on : 08/06/2018
Registered on : 04/07/2018
Decided on : 19/10/2019
Duration : Y M D
01 03 15
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
Misc. Appeal No.181 of 2018
Silicon Interfaces,
Unit No.175A SDF VI,
SEEPZSEZ,
Andheri(E), Mumbai96 ..Appellant
V/s.
The Estate Manager
SEEPZSpecial Economic Zone
Authority, Government of
India, Ministry of Commerce
& Industry, Andheri (E),
Mumbai96 ..Respondent
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
V.G. BISHT
Dated : 19th October,2019
(C.R.No.19)
Advocate Mr.P.N. Kulkarni a/w. advocate Mr.Gaurav Ombale for
appellant.
Advocate Mr.M.S. Bharadwaj for respondent.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
Being aggrieved by the order dated 4th May,2018 of payment
-- 1 of 11 --
2 Misc.app.181.18
of rent under Section 7(3) and order of eviction passed by the Estate
Officer under SubSection (1) of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction
of Unauthorised Occupants)Act,1971 ('the P.P. Act' for short) in respect of
Unit No.175A, SDF VI, Phase I, SEEPZSEZ, Andheri (E), Mumbai96
('schedule premises' for short), the appellant has preferred the present
appeal.
2 Brief facts: Appellant is Managing Director of Silicon
Interfaces. The schedule premises, admeasuring 307 sq.mtrs. was allotted
to appellant. However, later on SEEPZ Authorities altered the initial
allocation from 307 sq.mtrs. to 282 sq.mtrs. The appellant, accordingly,
initiated exports during one year of altered allocation of space.
3 According to appellant, they were permitted Rent Concession
as 50% on the first year of export, 40% in second year and 25% in the
third year of exports. SEEPZ Authorities, accordingly issued the Letter of
Permission (LOP) based on performance at the end of every five years.
LOP was thus extended duration of five years on 10th July,2006. Though
the tenancy agreement was adjudicated in the year 2009, but the same was
never executed by the SEEPZ Authorities. The appellant has been
continuously paying the rent. There were some confusion on the payment
of rent as the same was not properly accounted by the respondent. Despite
seeking clarification, there was no response from the side of respondent.
4 The appellant then contends that upon expiration of LOP
-- 2 of 11 --
3 Misc.app.181.18
granted, an extension letter of permission dated 12th January,2011 was
issued. However, the SEEPZ Authority cancelled the valid LOP on 6th
April,2011 raising some invalid and frivolous contentions. Because of this,
the appellant could not carry on their business of the export works as
desired leading to slow down of the business. Even, the appellant was
evicted illegally without notice overnight. After the cancellation of LOP,
then a reconciliation took place and the respondent allowed the appellant
to reoccupy the premises.
5 The appellant alleges that again in the year 2015, SEEPZ sent
another show cause notice demanding huge outstanding in the sum of
Rs.38,08,655/ as on 31 st March,2011, whereas as per eviction notice dated
4th May,2018, the outstanding amount was Rs.65,96,093/.
6 The appellant then alleges that the ledger copy was not given
to him at the time of hearing and the respondent also failed to furnish
relevant documents. Hence, this appeal.
7 The respondent resisted appeal by filing their affidavit in reply
(Exh.4). According to respondent, since there was no payment of dues and
no activities carried out in the Unit (schedule premises) by the appellant,
even after the renewal of LOA, the respondent vide letter dated 6th
April,2011 cancelled the LOA issued to the appellant vide letter dated 12th
January,2011. The eviction proceedings were accordingly initiated and
-- 3 of 11 --
4 Misc.app.181.18
after the conclusion, it was found that the appellant was liable for eviction
from the schedule premises being an unauthorized occupant and also
liable for damages. In such circumstances, the appeal deserves to be
dismissed with costs, concluded respondent.
8 Mr.P.N. Kulkarni, learned counsel for appellant, during the
course of arguments invited my attention to various documentary evidence
to show how there is discrepancy in the amount of damages claimed and
awarded by the Estate Officer. Moreover, according to him, no opportunity
was given to appellant. Even, while awarding damages, the law of
limitation was over looked by the Estate Officer. The impugned orders
came to be passed in stark disregarded to the provision of P.P. Act
inasmuch as no documents were produced in support of case by the
respondent. For all these reasons, the appeal deserved to be allowed,
argued learned counsel.
9 Apart from this, learned counsel for appellant has also filed
additional points of arguments (Exh.5) alongwith judgment in Dr.Suhas
H. Pophale V/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And its Estate Officer, AIR
2014 Supreme Court 1509.
10 Mr.M.S. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for respondent, on the
other hand, supported the impugned orders passed by Estate Officer
contending that despite giving number of opportunities to the appellants,
they had failed to clear the dues and thus are in unauthorized occupation
-- 4 of 11 --
5 Misc.app.181.18
of the schedule premises since 2011. There being no merit in the appeal,
the same deserves to be dismissed, argued learned counsel. The learned
counsel also placed reliance in M/s.Infoquest Infotech Pvt. Ltd. & anr.
V/s. The Union of India & anr., in Writ Petition No.2293 of 2013
decided on 29th October,2014.
11 Following points, therefore, arise for my consideration and my
findings thereon for the reasons are as follows:
POINTS FINDINGS
1) Whether the impugned order
passed by the Estate Officer is ..Partly yes
legal, just and proper?
2) What order? ..As per final order
R E A S O N S
As to point no.1:
12 On going through the order of eviction (Exh.B), it appears that
the Estate Officer passed the order of eviction mainly on the grounds that
LOA (Letter of Approval) had been cancelled for non compliance and
failure to clear the outstanding Government dues and failure to execute the
sub lease Agreement.
-- 5 of 11 --
6 Misc.app.181.18
13 There is no dispute to the fact that the last LOA was issued
vide letter no. SEEPZ/NUS/APL/474/9798/512 dated 12 th January,2011
for the period of 201011 to 201415. However, this LOA came to be
cancelled vide letter No.SEEPZSEZ/NUS/APL/474/9798/4869 dated 6 th
April,2011. There are three grounds mentioned in the said letter. (1) An
amount of Rs.35,08,655/ was outstanding against the appellant for
payment of lease rent dues. (2) On inspection, it was noticed that no
activity was carried out by the appellant in the schedule premises and (3)
the condition of premises was in dilapidated state.
14 To counter the above noted arguments, the appellant has
putforth that the LOA dated 12th January,2011 was cancelled on invalid
and frivolous grounds, despite the fact that the appellant was continuously
paying the rent. However, the pleadings of appellant also admit that there
were some confusion on the payment of rent as the same were not properly
accounted and despite its repeated demands as to how the claim amount of
Rs.65 lacs are being claimed, he did not get proper response.
15 What is apparent from the pleadings is that there was some
differences between him and the respondent no.1 regarding the payment
of rent amount. This is apparent from the correspondences made by
appellant with respondent no.1. It appears from the record that in order to
get LOA renewed, the appellant wrote letter dated 25th June,2015 to
respondent no.2 by referring its last communication (vide ref:
-- 6 of 11 --
7 Misc.app.181.18
SI/SEZ/LR/13/07 and date 25/11/2013) which read as under:
“We submit herewith the statement from
Apr 1999 Mar 2004, and it seems as outstanding is
due on the date of Rs.81,386, which we shall be glad to
clear at the earliest with simple interest, once you
accept the statement of accounts.”
This letter also submitted the calculations. The above said letter itself goes
to show that even on 25th June,2015 i.e. much after the termination of LOA
dated 12th January,2011, which was terminated on the ground of non
payment of outstanding of rent, the appellant was still continuing with the
outstanding amount to its credit. There are more such correspondences.
16 A letter dated 9th March,2017 addressed to respondent no.1 by
appellant intimated the former about it being in a process of getting a final
reconciled statement from SEEPZ and in the said letter also attached its
statement for the ready reckoning of respondent no.2. It also again
requested the restoration of LOA. This letter also indicates that everything
was not right with the outstanding amount standing in the name of
appellant.
17 Again, by letter dated 27th December,2017, the appellant
informed respondent no.2 about having reconciled of its accounts to date
and submitted accordingly for its consideration followed by request of
renewal of LOA. Needless to say, this letter also further strengthens the
-- 7 of 11 --
8 Misc.app.181.18
claim of respondent no.2 that the appellant was in arrears of rent. Had it
not been so, there was no reason for appellant to undertake an exercise of
the reconciliation of accounts from time to time and make fervent request
to restore LOA.
18 The above discussion would show that the Estate Officer was
justified in holding the appellant in arrears of Government dues. This
finding definitely cannot be questioned.
19 I have carefully gone through the judgment cited by the
learned counsel for respondent in M/s.Infoquest Infotech Pvt. Ltd. & anr.
V/s. The Union of India & anr.,(Supra). With due respect, since
obtaining factual position in the instant case is different than the factual
position in the citation, the same does not serve the purpose of appellant.
20 Another order impugned is about the direction given by the
Estate Officer to appellant to pay the rent to the tune of Rs.65,96,093.90. I
have carefully gone through the order under subSection 3 of Section 7 of
the P.P. Act which is filed on record at Exh.A. Strictly speaking, the
impugned order is totally silent as to the calculation of said amount. How
this amount was calculated and while calculating the said amount,
whether law of limitation was kept in mind or not is not at all disclosed.
The reasons for assessment so arrived at are not discerning. It does not
help this court to conclude that the calculation was done as per the
provisions of law.
-- 8 of 11 --
9 Misc.app.181.18
21 I have already pointed out that there was dispute between the
parties about the arrears of rent and even this fact was acknowledged by
appellant by indulging in the correspondence and submitting reconciled
statement of arrears of rent. It is not that the appellant was not at fault but
then the arrears has to be calculated as per the provisions of law.
Pendency of arrears disentitled the appellant to continue with the LOA and
because of this the appellant could not carry on their business of the export
works as desired leading to slow down of the business and has faced the
consequences in the form of order of eviction. However, while saddling
damages/arrears of rent, it was incumbent upon the Estate Officer to
afford an opportunity to the appellant to convince him as to how he was in
arrears of rent amounting to Rs..65,96,093.90. At the same time, whether
the point of limitation was kept in mind or not is also not clear because the
impact of limitation will have far reaching effect. Therefore, the
outstanding arrears of rent assessed by Estate Officer is not sustainable for
the reasons mentioned herein above.
22 In view of above, I pass the following order:
O R D E R
Misc.Appeal No.181/18 is partly allowed.
Order of eviction stands confirmed.
However, the Estate Officer is directed to determine and
-- 9 of 11 --
10 Misc.app.181.18
decide the outstanding arrears of rent afresh including the question as to
whether or not claim of arrears of rent or part thereof is barred by
limitation by affording the opportunities to both the sides.
The Estate Officer shall dispose of the matter (question of
arrears of rent) within a period of three months from the date of
communication of this order.
19/10/2019 (V. G. BISHT)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 19/10/2019
Transcribed on : 20/10/2019
Signed by HHJ on : 20/10/2019
-- 10 of 11 --
11 Misc.app.181.18
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographer: Mrs.Aruna S. Jayade
Upload date and time: 22/10/2019 (5.30 p.m.)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Shri V.G. BISHT(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 19th October,2019
Order signed by P.O. on 22nd October,2019
Order uploaded on 22nd October,2019
-- 11 of 11 --