TARUN JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. SHYAMAL DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of proceedings being complaint case no. CNS 2855/2024 pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Calcutta redesignated as the learned Judicial Magistrate, 19th Court, Calcutta.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a 69 year old person who is the President of Reliance Industries Limited. The opposite party being the owner of the property in question located at 210B/I.T. Kalicharan Ghosh Road, Kolkata - 700050 executed a lease agreement with Reliance on 5/7/2018 in respect of the property for a period of 30 years commencing from 26/6/2018 and expiring on 25/6/2048, upon payment of monthly lease rent to the tune of Rs.75,000.00 subject to an escalation of rent @ 10% on the last paid rent over three years. Clause 9 of the agreement spells out that if the lessor decides to sell the demised premises during validity of the agreement, the lessee shall have the right of first refusal, such right being exercised within 30 days of making the offer by the lessor. Upon failure of the lessee to exercise such right, the lessor shall be free to sell,, assign and transfer the premises to any person of his choice, subject to the rights of the lessee under this deed. It is agreed that the agreement shall not be terminated by the lessor or any person/entity claiming under him at any time during the entire lease period. However, the lessee is entitled to terminate the agreement at any time during the lease period without assigning any reason therefor upon service of three months' notice on the lessor. An arbitration clause has also been laid down in the agreement.

(3.) Subsequently, due to business failure, the lessor/opposite party was not able to repay loan taken by him from the bank for which proceeding was drawn up against him under the SARFAESI Act before the Learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Kolkata. The opposite party proposed to sell out the property and such offer was made to the petitioner. Though the petitioner initially agreed to purchase the property, it was not ultimately possible. The petitioner was asked to vacate the property so that it could be sold out to others. Legal notices were issued by the opposite party in this regard and it is urged that the petitioner initially claimed Rs.60,000.00 and thereafter Rs.1,20,000.00 for vacating the property. Upon the petitioner expressing the inability of the company to either purchase the property at the demanded purchase price of Rs.7,43,32,535.00 or pay interest free advance of Rs.5,00,00,000.00. relation between the parties soured and the present complaint was lodged. There is no prima facie material against the petitioner under sec. 384/406/420/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code in the complaint. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature which has been given a criminal colour.