MOHENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is filed by the petitioner praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to release the deed of lease dated August 4,1990 executed by the officer on special duty, Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority in favour of the petitioner in respect of plot No. 14 under CIT Scheme VIII-N measuring an area of about 162.53 square metres (hereinafter referred to as the said plot of land) as also praying for a direction to quash and set aside the decision of the respondent No.2 for payment of Rs.31,743.45/- as communicated to him as per letters dated May 3, 1989 and November 3, 1999.

(2.) The petitioner submitted an application dated January 10,1996 in prescribed form to the respondent authority for granting a lease of in respect of the said plot of land in his favour at a total premium of Rs.2,678,287.00. An agreement for lease dated January 21, 1989 was entered into by and between the respondent authority and the petitioner to that effect on payment of Rs. 1,60,878.00, i.e. sixty per cent of the total premium. The rest of the amount of Rs. 1,06,409.00, i.e. forty per cent of the total premium, was decided to be paid in ten equal instalments. On the basis of further negotiations, the number of instalments for payment of due premium was reduced. On August 4, 1990 a deed of lease was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said plot of land. As per communication dated may 11,1998 the petitioner requested the respondent No.2 to release the aforesaid deed of lease to him. In reply to the above communication the respondent No.2, as per his communication dated November 3, 1998, informed him that the petitioner was required to pay the outstanding premium of Rs. 1,06,409.00 together with interest in five equal annual instalments of Rs.31,743.45 each instead of four instalments as erroneously stated in the deed of lease executed in respect of said plot of land. So the petitioner was requested to execute a deed of rectification and to pay the fifth instalment. The petitioner refuted the claim of the respondent No.2 to pay the fifth instalment as aforesaid. After a series of correspondences the petitioner by his Advocate's letter dated August 19, 2000 demanded justice and claimed for return of the original deed of lease executed in respect of the said plot of land. In reply the respondent No.2 as per communication dated April 12, 2001 informed the learned Advocate of the petitioner that the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs. 31,743.45 towards the last instalment in order to get the deed of lease released. Hence, this writ application.

(3.) Mr. R. Basu Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that there is no/ dispute with regard to the fact that the deed of lease dated August 4,1990 was executed by and between the petitioner and the respondent authority in respect of the said plot of land. In terms of the above deed of lease the petitioner was required to pay the balance amount in four equal instalments. That outstanding amount has already been paid to the respondent authority. Now, they cannot claim further amount in connection therewith on any pretext. Mr. Basu Chowdhury further submits that the claim of the petitioner is barred by the provisions of Section 26 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Mr. Basu Chowdhury also submits that in accordance with provision of Section 91 of the Evidence Act, the terms and conditions of the deed of lease is the proof of outstanding amount. That cannot be enhanced at the instance of the respondent authority.