VIDYA RAM STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. Vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the letter dated October 4, 2016 and July 14, 2017 (Annexure P-11 and Annexure P-14 to the writ application respectively), by which the lease agreement between the petitioners and the respondent No.1 was terminated and by which the petitioners were called upon to deliver up possession of the land in question in favour of the respondent No.1.

(2.) The petitioner no.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act , 1956 and the petitioner no.2 is one of the directors of the said company (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner-Company"). The petitioner-Company entered into lease agreement with the respondent No.1 on June 15, 2006 in connection with land measuring 5 acres in plot No. 100(P) under Mouza- Namobandh Sitarampur, Police Station - Barjora in the district of Bankura on the basis of the terms and conditions incorporated in the lease deed. It appears from the terms incorporated in paragraph 2(x) of the lease deed that the lease agreement can be terminated by the lessor if the lessee company does not utilise the land in question for a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the lease deed. The petitioner-Company obtained land from the respondent no.1 for setting up of "Ferro Alloys Rolling Mills Unit and Induction Furnace Unit". The lease agreement was terminated by the respondent no.1 by letter dated October 4, 2016 on the ground that the petitioner-Company did not utilise the land within the stipulated period of 10 years and the wilful inaction on the part of the petitioner-Company in fulfilling its contractual obligation compelled the respondent no.1 to terminate the lease deed. By letter dated July 14, 2017 issued by the respondent no.2, the petitioner-Company was asked to deliver up peaceful and vacant possession of the land in question in favour of the respondent no.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter.

(3.) Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel representing the petitioners, submits that the petitioner-Company has already obtained necessary licence and permission from the concerned authority to make the factory operational and the second unit, i.e, Induction Furnace Unit has already started operation and 30 people are engaged in running the said factory. By referring to the terms incorporated in paragraph 2(x) of the lease deed, Mr. Majumdar submits that the petitioner-Company has already utilised the land and the construction work is in progress and as such, termination of the lease agreement is not in accordance with the terms incorporated in the lease deed.