Vijay Interiors & Anr vs. The W B Small Industries Development Corporation LTD & Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vijay Interiors, is a tenant under the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (WBSIDCL). The petitioner took over tenancy of a shop room previously occupied by Kemex India. Due to outstanding rental dues and statutory taxes owed by Kemex India, the WBSIDCL, by an order dated April 23, 2012, demanded Rs. 1,47,372/- from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a representation on May 21, 2012, which remained unconsidered, leading to an appeal filed before the Managing Director, WBSIDCL, which is still pending. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 75,000/- without prejudice, which was done. The petitioner is also up-to-date with current rent, municipal taxes, and security charges, including GST. The petitioner also raised a grievance regarding being charged for electricity despite disconnection in 2007.

Held

The Court held that it is the duty of the respondents to ascertain the actual dues to be paid by the petitioner. The Court directed the WBSIDCL and its officers to provide the petitioner with a detailed statement of account relevant to the writ petition. Upon receiving this statement, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an objection before the Managing Director, WBSIDCL, within 30 days. The Managing Director is then mandated to dispose of the pending appeal, filed against the order dated May 10, 2012, within 60 days of receiving the petitioner's objection. This disposal will be based on the statement of account, the petitioner's objection, and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Court did not specifically address the issue of electricity charges beyond directing the provision of a statement of account.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent Corporation is obligated to provide a detailed statement of account to the petitioner for all dues, including those inherited from the previous tenant, and charges for electricity, considering the petitioner's representation and pending appeal. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the WBSIDCL should ascertain the actual dues payable by them. They argue that the demand of Rs. 1,47,372/- is disputed, and a proper accounting is necessary. The petitioner also highlights the issue of being charged for electricity after its disconnection in 2007, necessitating a clear statement of accounts. They rely on the fact that they have been depositing current dues and have an appeal pending before the Managing Director. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.