PATEL & KAMANI AGENCIES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI. NAKUL KAMANI Vs. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, PATNA, STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the maintainability of Estate Case No.01 of 2013, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts disclosed in the present proceeding are that, an unregistered agreement dated 12.02.2007 was executed between the petitioner Firm and the respondent Corporation where under, one shop room measuring 1138 Sq.Ft. on the ground floor of the Hindustan Building, Main Road, Bistupur, Distt.-Singhbhum East was leased with effect from 01.08.2005. The period under the lease was to expire on 31.07.2010. In the agreement dated 12.02.2007, there is a provision for renewal of the lease and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner made an application on 04.05.2010 seeking renewal of the agreement for a further period of 5 years. It is stated that on 18.07.2009, the premises in question was inspected and serious violations of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement were found. Vide notice dated 15.04.2010, the lease was terminated and the petitioner Firm was directed to vacate the premises in question within 30 days. Subsequently, letter dated 01.07.2010 was issued by the respondent Corporation stating that the lease has expired on 31.07.2010, and the petitioner firm was directed to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession.

(3.) Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner raising the question of jurisdiction of the Estate Officer submits that the premises under the lease agreement dated 12.02.2007 is not a "public premises" under Sec. 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the petitioner firm is not an unauthorised occupant. The lease agreement is an unregistered instrument and thus, the petitioner is a tenant on month to month basis, and therefore, proceeding for eviction of the petitioner can be initiated under the tenancy laws only. It is further contended that in view of pendency of Title Suit No.101 of 2010, the proceeding in Estate Case No.01 of 2013 cannot continue. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that about 3 years after the petitioner instituted Title Suit No.101 of 2010 seeking permanent injunction against the respondent Corporation, Estate Case No.01 of 2013 has been filed to avoid the proceeding initiated by the petitioner. Alleging arbitrary action of the respondent Corporation and relying on decision in " Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.", (1990) 4 SCC 406 , the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that institution of Estate Case No.01 of 2013 by the respondent Corporation is an abuse of the process of law.