JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 02/01/2012 and 10/01/2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 15/2008, titled as M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Premchand Jain & ors. whereby the court settled terms and conditions of the lease deed and passed certain directions with respect to the accumulated arrears. 2. The undisputed facts, emerging from the facts available on record, disclose that the respondents No. 1 to 4 are owners of a piece of land bearing No. A-27/12, Sawai Jai Singh Highway, Bani Park, Jaipur admeasuring about 992.20 sq. meters. The petitioner-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short, 'the petitioner-company') principally engaged in the petroleum business, issued an advertisement on 02/11/2002 for establishing of a retail outlet under the Land Linkage Category upon which the respondents No. 1 to 4 made an offer by an application dated 31/12/2003, negotiations were held and minutes of meeting were drawn on 04/02/2003 and 26/07/2004. The petitioner-company claims that a draft of lease deed was also signed by the respondents on 15/12/2005 who further signed and executed an undertaking-cum-indemnity bond dated 31/07/2004. The respondents No. 1 to 4 claim that the draft was prepared on signed papers of the respondents and was not acted upon whereas the undertaking-cum-indemnity bond was signed with the clear understanding that the dealership under the Land Linkage Category would be valid as long as the lease is operative. The rate of rent (w.e.f. 11/02/2003) which was Rs. 90,000/- per month with an enhancement of 20% after every five years and the lease term of 20 years is not a matter of dispute between the parties. A petrol pump has already been established by the petitioner-company upon the land of the respondents No. 1 to 4 and a dealership under Land Linkage category has also been awarded to the respondents who are operating under the name and style of Balaji Petroleum, Bani Park, Jaipur. 3. As a formal lease deed was not executed and registered between the parties, the petitioner-company filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction alongwith an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC against the respondents No. 1 to 4. The application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 was decided and certain directions came to be passed. The application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 was decided and certain directions came to be passed. An application under Section 151 CPC was also filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4 for compliance of the temporary injunction order which was adjudicated vide order dated 17/12/2008. This order was challenged by the petitioner-company by way of filing a writ petition before this Court bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1680/2009 and the same was disposed of by this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Bhagwati) on 01/12/2011. The relevant portion of the said order passed by this Court (supra) is reproduced here as under:- "Having considered the submissions made at the bar, it is revealed that both the parties are prepared to execute lease-deed in accordance with the terms and conditions as agreed upon between them but none of them is found coming forward with clean mind. Petitioner wants certain terms and conditions to be incorporated as per his convenience and in contra. The respondents-defendants intend to incorporate those terms and conditions, which suits them, but the directions issued by the learned trial court while adjudicating the application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC tangibly suggests that both the parties are required to execute lease-deed as per the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties and incorporate those conditions and issues too, which were recorded in minutes pursuant to the conference having taken place between the parties on 4th February, 2003 and 26th July,2004. To resolve the controversy, I feel to direct both the parties to submit proposed lease-deed within a period of 15 days in accordance with the terms and conditions as agreed upon between the parties and submit before the learned trial court and the learned trial court is directed to settle a final lease-deed within a period of fifteen days, after having scanned both the lease-deeds; so as to give effect to the afore-stated terms and conditions in letter and spirit. The learned trial court is also expected to pass an order with regard to payment of arrears of rent, which have been pending unpaid for the last seven years, again in accordance with the terms and conditions, as agreed upon between the parties. With the afore-stated directions, the writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. The learned trial court is also expected to pass an order with regard to payment of arrears of rent, which have been pending unpaid for the last seven years, again in accordance with the terms and conditions, as agreed upon between the parties. With the afore-stated directions, the writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Consequent upon the disposal of the writ petition, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands disposed of accordingly. 4. Upon such directions, on 14/12/2011, the respondents No. 1 to 4 submitted a draft lease deed and the petitioner-company also submitted a draft lease deed on 16/12/2011 before the trial court. The petitioner-company also submitted objection on the draft lease deed submitted by the respondents No. 1 to 4. 5. The trial court, in the light of the order of this Court dated 01/12/2011, after hearing the rival parties and upon perusal of the record, passed an order dated 02/01/2012 settling terms and conditions of the lease deed and passed certain directions with respect to the accumulated arrears. Certain typographical errors crept in this order which was corrected by the trial court vide order dated 10/01/2012. It is these orders which are under challenge by the petitioner-company in the instant writ petition. 6. Mr. S. Kasliwal, Senior Advocate, assisted by MR. RN Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner-company has raised certain objections to the terms and conditions of the lease deed settled by the trial court. He submits that the trial court has committed a serious error in adopting Hindi version of the lease deed discarding the English version submitted by the petitioner-company. He further asserts that the trial court erroneously incorporated Clause-2 in the approved lease deed which, according to him, pertains to the dealership agreement. He further attacked Clause-3 of the lease deed necessitating prior permission by the petitioner-company for conducting any other activity in the leased premises. He also raised objection against Clause-5 asserting that the trial court erred in not awarding interest on Rs. 18,02,765/- deposited by the petitioner-company as conversion charges. He further attacked Clause-7 asserting that the trial court seriously erred in fastening the liability of annual lease money payable to Nagar Nigam upon the petitioner-company, against the agreed terms and conditions. He also raised objection against Clause-5 asserting that the trial court erred in not awarding interest on Rs. 18,02,765/- deposited by the petitioner-company as conversion charges. He further attacked Clause-7 asserting that the trial court seriously erred in fastening the liability of annual lease money payable to Nagar Nigam upon the petitioner-company, against the agreed terms and conditions. He further raised objection against Clause-8 contending that the automatic termination of the lease deed upon termination of dealership was never agreed upon by the parties and such a condition is relatable to the dealership agreement and not lease agreement. He also objected against incorporation of Clauses 9, 13 and 14 in the approved lease deed. As regards the arrears of rent, he stated that the same are due from 11/02/2003 but are payable only upon execution of registration of the lease deed. 7. Mr. SP Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ankit Sethi, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 supported the order passed by the trial court and submitted that huge arrears have accumulated towards the petitioner-company but the petitioner-company, on one pretext or the other, is not paying the same to the respondents No. 1 to 4 causing serious loss to the respondents. He further submits that the dealership awarded to the respondents No. 1 to 4 was under the Land Linkage Category and, therefore, the objection raised in this behalf by the petitioner-company were unsustainable. He further submitted that this Court vide order dated 01/12/2011 directed the trial court to prepare final lease deed as per minutes dated 04/02/2013 and 26/07/2004 and such order being unchallenged in higher forum, has attained finality and, therefore, he submits that the petitioner-company is estopped from raising new objections. He further supports Clause-7 of the final draft asserting that the liability to pay annual lease money to Nagar Nigam, Jaipur always rested upon the petitioner-company and this was orally agreed upon between the parties as revealed from the payment of Rs. 1,12,672.50 vide receipt No. 781852 dated 27/02/2003 made by the petitioner-company directly. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully perused the record available including the orders impugned. 9. The only dispute raised herein by the counsels for the petitioner-company as also respondents is as to the certain terms and conditions of the final lease deed settled by the trial court. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully perused the record available including the orders impugned. 9. The only dispute raised herein by the counsels for the petitioner-company as also respondents is as to the certain terms and conditions of the final lease deed settled by the trial court. This Court vide order dated 01/12/2011 in SB Civil Writ petition No. 1680/2009 (supra) passed certain directions upon which the impugned orders came to be passed by the trial court. In such circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to restrict its purview to the objections raised by the petitioner-company with respect to the clauses of the final lease draft. 10. The first objection raised before this Court is as to the language of the final lease deed adopted by the trial court. This Court feels that the objection is more of form than substance. The document is in Hindi language or in English language, this aspect is of little significance so long as it depicts the true state of affairs as agreed upon. In this part of the country, Hindi language is prevalent and more frequent in documentation and hence by mere adopting a version of Hindi language, departing from the standard format of the company, the trial court has not committed any error. Hence, the objection raised in this behalf is rejected. 11. The second objection is with respect to Clause-2 which in essence merely reiterates that a petrol pump has been established and a dealership under the Land Linked Category was awarded to the respondents No. 1 to 4 on 15/12/2005 who are working under the name and style of Balaji Petrol, Bani Park, Jaipur. The correctness of facts stated in this clause is not denied by the petitioner-company. Mere incorporation of such a clause does not convert the lease deed in to a dealership deed. The trial court has already ordered deletion of Clauses No. 4,11,13 and last line of Clause No. 2 from the draft proposal submitted by the respondents. Hence, objection raised in this behalf by the petition-company is also unsustainable. 12. The third objection is with regard to Clause No. 3. The essence of Clause No. 3 is that apart from operating a petrol pump and other ancillary work related thereto, the company shall carry no other work in the said petrol pump without the permission of the land lord. 12. The third objection is with regard to Clause No. 3. The essence of Clause No. 3 is that apart from operating a petrol pump and other ancillary work related thereto, the company shall carry no other work in the said petrol pump without the permission of the land lord. The draft proposal submitted by the petitioner-company, the minutes and other material available on record, sufficiently reveal that the company is principally involved in selling or otherwise dealing in petrol and its products and other ancillary activities for which the permission had already been granted. Granting unrestricted right of user to the company was never intended nor agreed between the party. Neither such unrestricted power is equitable nor the petitioner-company has revealed as to what other work it intents to carry. Already half the lease term has expired and hence the objection raised by the petitioner-company in this behalf is of no substance. 13. The fourth objection is also with respect to Clause-5. The petitioner-company objects to this Clause asserting that the trial court has not awarded any interest on Rs. 18,02,765/- i.e. on the conversion charges deposited by the company. This objection raised is of no force. The petitioner-company has not challenged this Clause in the trial court. Besides, there was no agreement with respect to the payment of interest on this amount. The order, in my view, passed in this regard appears just and reasonable. 14. The fifth objection is with respect to Clause-7 and this issue appears to be a major dispute between the parties. The Clause No. 7 fastens liability of commercial annual lease money chargeable on the land by Jaipur Municipal Corporation upon the petitioner-company. The trial court fastened such a liability relying upon a receipt dated 27/02/2003 through which an amount of Rs. 1,12,672.50 was deposited by the petitioner-company. There is no dispute between the parties that the liability of conversion charges was borne by the respondent-landlord although one time payment of Rs. 18,02,765/- was made in this behalf by the company but it was agreed that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- shall be deductible each month from the lease rent payable by the company as adjustment of this payment of conversion charges. 18,02,765/- was made in this behalf by the company but it was agreed that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- shall be deductible each month from the lease rent payable by the company as adjustment of this payment of conversion charges. This fact clearly indicates that charges levied/attributable and relatable to the land was agreed to be borne by the lessors whereas the charges, taxes, levies relatable to the business, was agreed to be borne by the lessee company. The respondents allege that there was an oral agreement in this behalf upon which the company deposited the commercial lease premium payable to Jaipur Municipal Corporation to the tune of Rs. 1,12,672.50. The details of such alleged oral agreement are nowhere disclosed by the respondents. The undertaking-cum-indemnity bond and the minutes and other relevant material, only lead to the conclusion that this liability was agreed to be borne by the lessors. The commercial annual lease premium is charged by the Jaipur Municipal Corporation on a piece of land or property situated within its region, irrespective of the fact whether any business activities are carried upon the property or not. Such permission is relatable to the land and not to the business carried upon the land. There are provisions by virtue of which an owner can pay a lump sum amount and make his land freehold. 15. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds force in the objection raised by the petitioner-company regarding this clause. The liability of payment of annual commercial lease money chargeable by the Jaipur Municipal Corporation needs to be fastened upon the respondents No. 1 to 4 and not the petitioner-company and hence this clause needs to be modified accordingly. 16. The next objection raised by the petitioner-company is with respect to Clause-8. The petitioner-company contends that it has every right to terminate the dealership agreement prior to the agreed 20 years' period and in such eventuality, the lease could not be claimed to be ipso-facto terminated. The termination of dealership and termination of lease are different matters. In essence, the Clause-8 intended that if such dealership is terminated without any reason or without any breach of terms and conditions of the dealership agreement, then only the lease deed would be deemed to be terminated. Thus clause-8 needs to be modified accordingly to make it more explicit. 17. The next objection is with regard to Clause-9. In essence, the Clause-8 intended that if such dealership is terminated without any reason or without any breach of terms and conditions of the dealership agreement, then only the lease deed would be deemed to be terminated. Thus clause-8 needs to be modified accordingly to make it more explicit. 17. The next objection is with regard to Clause-9. There is no objection with respect to this clause by the petitioner-company in the trial court and this is well demonstrated in the impugned order. The relevant portion is reproduced here as under:- " izfroknh }kjk izLrqr izLrkfor yhtMhM ds en uacj 5] 9] 12 o 15 esa of.kZr 'krksZa ckcr oknh }kjk dksbZ vkifr ugha dh xbZ gS vr% en la0 5] 9] 12 o 15 dks ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA " 18. As such, the petitioner-company is not entitled to raise such objection before this Court for the first time. 19. As regards the objection to Clauses-13 & 14, this Court finds no force in such objections for the reason that the trial court has scrutinised the same in detail and reached to the right conclusion. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company was unable to point out any error in such a conclusion reached by the trial court. 20. As regards the payment of arrears is concerned, this Court is sorry to state that even public sector undertaking like petitioner-company, are avoiding the payment of rental and arrears on one pretext or the other and testing the patience of a private person. The payment of rent regularly is the foremost obligation of a tenant. A tenant cannot enjoy using the premises without making payment of rent under any law. It is shocking that more than ten years have passed in the instant case out of a total lease term of twenty years and still no rent is paid by the petitioner. Till 10/12/2011 an amount of Rs. 85,65,235/- was due towards the petitioner. This amount has further increased by more than Rs. 30 Lacs till date and is increasing day by day. The quantification made by the trial court as to the amount due is not disputed before this Court by the petitioner. Till 10/12/2011 an amount of Rs. 85,65,235/- was due towards the petitioner. This amount has further increased by more than Rs. 30 Lacs till date and is increasing day by day. The quantification made by the trial court as to the amount due is not disputed before this Court by the petitioner. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the petitioner-company to pay the respondents the arrears as quantified by the trial court adding a further amount which has accrued till date after deducting the amount deposited on 27/02/2003 vide receipt No. 781852 within a period of fifteen days from the date the trial court prepares the modified final lease deed. The order of the trial court is modified to the extent of the modification in Clauses-7 and 8, detailed herein before. Both the parties shall appear on 23/09/2013 in the trial court and the trial court shall prepare a modified lease deed within three weeks from 23/09/2013 in accordance with law and as directed herein before. 21. With these observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application also stands disposed of.Petition Disposed of. *******