NANAVATI SPECIALITY CHEMICALS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition under Article 14,19,121,226 and 200A of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking orders, directions against the Respondents in view of the failure of duties and inaction on their part in fixing the revised lease rent and paying the revised lease rent to the Petitioners for the premises which are under the use, occupation, possession and enjoyment of the Respondents. It is the case of the Petitioners that they entered into a lease agreement which was valid for a period of 5 years from 1st May, 1991 to 30th April, 1996 with the Respondents. The said lease agreement provided for renewal of the lease period for a further period on the terms and conditions containing therein namely to submit the revision of the rent and request being made by the Respondents three months prior to the expiry of lease period. Accordingly on the request having been made by the Respondents for an extension of the lease for 5 years from 1st May, 1996 to 30th April, 2001, the Petitioner agreed to extend a lease period for further term of 5 years on the condition of revision of rent in terms of prayer clause (a) of the lease agreement. However, the Petitioners avert that the Respondents unreasonably, openly and deliberately failed to revise the lease rent and acted in terms of the recommendation made by the Chairman, Hiring Committee (CPWD), Mumbai with respect to the enhancement / revision of the lease rent. It is the case of the Petitioner that even after completion of the entire revised lease period of 5 years on 30th April, 2001, the Respondent even failed and neglected to fix the revised rent and have not made payment at the revised rent to be fixed on such revision though the Respondents are bound to pay at such revised rate. Therefore, the Petitioners preferred above mentioned Writ Petition with following prayers :-

(2.) The Respondents have filed their affidavit in reply dated 14th September, 2001 duly affirmed by the Deepak Arora, Deputy Commissioner of Custom (Preventive), Mumbai and further affidavit in reply of Mrs. Reshma Lakhani, Joint Commissioner of Custom (P) (New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai) dated 20th October, 2002. The Respondents raised an objection about the maintainability of above mentioned Writ Petition for seeking reliefs derived from the contractual obligation of the Respondent and not from any statutory obligation. It is the case of the Respondents that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be dismissed on that ground. The Respondents further raised objection about the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court in view of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882. It is the case of the Respondent that Small Causes Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between licensor and licensee of any nature. Not only that it is the case of the Respondents that they never agreed to refer the matter to the Hiring Committee for fixing lease rent in respect of the suit premises. It is the case of the Respondents that in view of contractual agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondents, this Court have no jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant any relief in favour of the Petitioner.

(3.) The learned senior counsel Mr. Bharucha appearing on behalf of the Petitioners relied on lease agreement between Petitioners and Respondents dated 16th December, 1994. The learned senior counsel specifically relied on para 1, 2, 3, 8 and 11 from the said lease agreement. It is the case of the Petitioners that by their letter dated 20th January, 1996, called upon the Assistant Commissioner of Custom for renewal of lease agreement dated 16th December, 1994. It is specifically stated in the said letter that "we would, therefore, request you to kindly let us know whether you need the suit premises for a further period of another 5 years and ready and willing to execute the lease agreement, which will be subject to the revision of the rent, based on prevailing market rate in the adjoining locality of the said premises in your occupation, where they are situated." The learned senior counsel appearing for Petitioner pointed out that the Assistant Commissioner and Custom Preventive (G) and Building vide its letter dated 7th March, 1996 informed the Petitioner that the Custom house was interested to continue hiring of their Warehouse on rental basis for a further period of 5 years. It is also specifically stated in the said letter that they would refer the matter to the Hiring Committee (CPWD), Mumbai for their opinion. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Hiring Committee in their meeting discussed the Petitioner's matter for fixing lease premium and came to the conclusion that market rate is between 12.67 paise per Sq.Ft. to 13.50 per Sq.Ft. Para 1 of the said Minutes of meeting reads as under :-