Gurdarshan Singh vs. Chandigarh Industrial Tourism Development Corportion LTD

Held

The Court noted that the respondent-Corporation, through a letter dated April 11, 2018, had withdrawn the eviction letter previously issued to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Corporation granted an extension of the contract period for three years, from July 10, 2017, to July 10, 2020, at a monthly license fee of ₹1,31,131/- plus GST, on the terms of the existing contract. This extension was subject to the petitioner depositing 12 post-dated cheques in advance and ensuring timely monthly payments by the 7th of each month. As the eviction notice was withdrawn and the petitioner was granted the requested extension, the writ petition was rendered infructuous and disposed of. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner defaulted on payments, the respondent-Corporation could take recourse in accordance with law. The petitioner was also granted liberty to revive the petition if any grievance subsisted.

Facts

The petitioner, Gurdarshan Singh, was allotted booth No. 6 at Chef Lakeview, Chandigarh, for photography business for an initial period of five years, extendable for another three years. He invested significantly in fittings and regularly paid rent and electricity bills. The petitioner sought an extension of his license for two years, submitting a request on June 1, 2017, as his initial five-year term was expiring on July 16, 2017. He noted that similarly situated licensees had received extensions, and a previous court order had directed status quo in a similar case. The respondent-Corporation initially asked the petitioner to vacate the booth.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent-Corporation is obligated to extend the lease of booth No. 6 to the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated July 17, 2012, considering the petitioner's investment and readiness to pay enhanced rent? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he had invested heavily in the booth and was ready to pay rent with a 10% annual increase as per the existing terms. He argued that he had not violated any conditions of the allotment and that similarly situated individuals had been granted extensions. He relied on the terms of the allotment letter which stipulated an extension period and the principle of maintaining status quo as directed in a prior case (CWP No. 12780 of 2017). Respondent's arguments: The respondent-Corporation did not explicitly argue against the extension but instead provided a letter on April 11, 2018, indicating their decision regarding the extension.