M/S Vishal Steel Furniture vs. The West Bengal Small Industries Development Cforporation Limited And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners are unit holders/occupiers of shop rooms at premises No. 31, Blackburn Lane, Shilpa Bhawan, Kolkata. They were aggrieved by a retrospective enhancement of rent to Rs. 80 per sq. ft. including GST, and paid rent on protest. As rent was not paid at the demanded rate, they were treated as defaulters, and show cause notices were issued. Proceedings continued, and petitioners were asked to deposit outstanding amounts. Their initial writ petitions were dismissed, and appeals led to a Division Bench directing the matter to the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal with costs but allowed the unit holders to pay outstanding dues within a fortnight and approach the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (WBSIDCL) for lease renewal/execution. The matter was to be placed before the WBSIDCL Board for a decision. The petitioners claim to have fulfilled their obligations, and payments were accepted.
Held
The High Court disposed of the writ petitions, upholding the pragmatic and fair view taken by the appellate authority. The Court found that the appellate authority's order, which allowed unit holders to pay outstanding dues within a fortnight and approach WBSIDCL for lease renewal/execution, could not be interfered with. The Court noted that the law permits condonation of default upon payment of outstanding amounts and continuation of occupation. The appellate authority had permitted the petitioners to make such prayers for lease execution. The Court directed the WBSIDCL Board to hold a meeting within two months, consider each unit holder's case in light of the appellate authority's decision, and take into account the issue of life and livelihood. The Board was requested to take a sympathetic view. Until the Board's decision, no coercive action would be taken against the unit holders. The Court emphasized that the sympathetic approach taken by the appellate authority was specific to the facts and circumstances of the case and could not be cited as a precedent.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeals with costs, despite the petitioners' undertaking to pay dues and seeking mercy. 2. Whether the appellate authority's order, which allowed payment of dues within a fortnight and consideration for lease renewal/execution by the WBSIDCL Board, is sustainable. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the appellate authority, while acknowledging their requests for mercy and assurances to pay dues, still imposed costs and directed them to pay within a short period. They argued that the appellate authority's order, though seemingly sympathetic, was harsh in its immediate demands and cost imposition. They also highlighted that their subsequent actions of paying dues and seeking lease renewal should be considered favorably. Revenue/State's arguments: The WBSIDCL, represented by Mr. Debabrata Banerjee, submitted that the petitioners had fulfilled their obligations under the appellate authority's order, and payments were accepted. The focus of the argument was on the subsequent compliance by the petitioners and the need for the WBSIDCL Board to consider their cases.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
and passed the following order :- “Since the undersigned is of the opinion and ordered that a sympathetic approach is being taken in the facts and circumstances, the same is only attributable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same cannot be cited the said example in other proceeding. The unit holders are directed to pay their dues within a period of fortnight from the date of receipt of this order, failing which action proceed as per law in provision.
In view of the above in the prevailing facts and circumstances taking into consideration the undertaking and successive letters unconditionally made by the unit holders as also written notes of argument filed by the unit holders. The undersigned in exercise of its discretion gave an opportunity to the unit holders directing them to pay their outstanding dues in respect of their units in terms of demand made by WBSIDCL within a period of fortnight from the date of receipt of the impugned order failing which in view of the 30 days Notice issued by the WBSIDCL dated 29.01.2024 will proceed in accordance with law for resumption of possession. It is also needless to say that a sympathetic approach being taken, does not create any right in favour of the parties concerned nor the same is enforceable in law as such the order, considering the payment, is only applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and not otherwise.”
As has already been stated in the order impugned by the appellate authority, the matter would be placed before the Board. On the earlier day, the matter was adjourned to enable the respondent no. 1 to come back with a decision in this regard and also with instruction as to whether the payment was made by the petitioners. The categorical submission of Mr. Banerjee was that each of the unit holders had fulfilled their obligation under the order. The payments made by the unit holders were accepted and it is expected that the matter will be placed before the Board for necessary approval, very soon.
6 This Court disposes of the writ petitions with a direction upon the Board to hold a meeting and consider the case of each of the unit holders in the light of the decision of the appellate authority. Prayer for execution of fresh lease and/or renewal of the existing lease as the case may be, must also be considered by taking into account the issue of life and livelihood. The appellate authority has taken a pragmatic and fair view. Thus, the said order cannot be interfered with. The law permits condonation of default upon payment of the outstanding amount and continuation of occupation of such unit holder/defaulters, in accordance with law. The appellate authority has already permitted the petitioners to make such prayer for execution of fresh lease. The appellate authority was of the view that on the basis of the undertakings given by the unit holders, that they would not raise any protest with regard to the enhancement of rent etc., the renewal of lease or fresh execution of lease may be permitted. The Board is requested to take a sympathetic view, which will be equitable and just. Supplementary affidavit and affidavit of service filed in Court be taken on record. The Board will decide the matter within two months and communicate a reasoned order. Till such decision, no coercive action will be taken. All parties are to act on a server copy of this order.
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)
TR/
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.