Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 404 (GAU)

Mukul Baruah v. Central Bank Of India

2022-04-19

MANISH CHOUDHURY

body2022
JUDGMENT : (Manish Choudhury, J.) : 1. Heard Mr. P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Central Bank of India for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDC for the respondent no. 3; and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 4. 2. The petitioner has claimed that he is the owner of a plot of land measuring 1 Katha and 1 Lessa [1K-1L], covered by Dag no. 76 and Periodic Patta no.75, located in Rangagarah Kissam, Mouza - Missa and District - Nagaon ['the subject-land, for short] and a two-storied building standing thereon ['the subject-building', for short]. The ground floor of the subject- building was taken on lease by the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank in the year 1979 by executing an agreement with the father of the petitioner who was alive at that point of time. In the year 1985, the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank stood merged with the respondent no. 1, Central Bank of India and after merger, the respondent no. 1 Bank was in occupation of the ground floor from the year 1985 onwards under lease. On 1/8/2019, a fresh lease agreement had been executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 Bank in respect of the ground floor of the subject-building for a period of 10 [ten] years i.e. up to 31/7/2029 and the Missa Branch/Office of the respondent no. 1 Bank is currently located in the said ground floor. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he has invested a huge amount of money to install necessary fittings, fixtures, etc. in order to make the premises ready for the respondent no. 1 Bank. As an acquisition process was initiated for four laning of National Highway 37 from Rangagara to Kaliabor Tiniali, a part of the subject-land along with a part of the subject-building has come under the purview of the acquisition process. The possession of that part of the subject- building has not yet been taken over by the acquiring authority till date. The further case of the petitioner is that in the event the part of the subject-land and the part of the subject-building are taken possession by the acquiring authority, the petitioner is ready to provide alternative accommodation to the respondent no. The further case of the petitioner is that in the event the part of the subject-land and the part of the subject-building are taken possession by the acquiring authority, the petitioner is ready to provide alternative accommodation to the respondent no. 1 Bank in the other part of the subject-land which has not come under the purview of the acquisition process and for that purpose, the petitioner is ready to make available the premises of necessary dimensions to the respondent no. 1 Bank. 4. Mr. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the lease agreement dtd. 1/8/2019, more particularly, Clause 1[g] thereof has provided that if the lessee [the respondent no. 1 Bank] desires to leave the premises during the currency of the lease period, the lessee shall have to give a notice of at least 30 days in writing to the lessor [the petitioner] intimating such intention of termination of tenancy without any compensation. It is his contention that without serving any kind of notice in terms of the lease agreement the respondent Bank has published a tender notice on 11/4/2022 whereby it has shown its inclination to acquire a premises comprising of carpet area of about 800-1000 Sq. Feet for locating its Missa Branch/Office. Mr. Bharadwaj has submitted that at present, the Missa Branch/Office of the respondent no.1 Bank is located at the subject-building and such process to acquire an alternative premise for locating the Missa Branch/Office of the respondent no. 1 Bank would be in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement dtd. 1/8/2019. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that by the tender notice dtd. 11/4/2022, the respondent Bank has invited applications from persons having premises of necessary area for locating the Missa Branch/Office within a period of 3 [three] months. As such, there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. It is his further submission that the terms and conditions of the lease agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent Bank are not enforceable in a writ petition. 6. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed to the writ petition. 7. It is his further submission that the terms and conditions of the lease agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent Bank are not enforceable in a writ petition. 6. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed to the writ petition. 7. The lease agreement, annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-1, is executed between the petitioner as the lessor and the respondent no. 1 Bank as the lessee. As per the lease agreement dtd. 1/8/2019, the term of the lease is for a period of 10 years and the ground floor of the subject-building has been taken a lease by the respondent no. 1 Bank for the purpose of locating its branch/office at Missa. Apart from the other conditions, sub-clause [g] of Clause 1 has provided that if the lessee desires to leave the premise during the currency of the lease period, it shall have to give a notice of 30 days in writing to the lessor disclosing such intention of termination of tenancy without any compensation. 8. The writ petition has been preferred seeking mainly two reliefs, firstly, a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside and quashing of the tender notice dtd. 11/4/2022 whereby the respondent no. 2 has invited bids from intending tenderers possessing premises measuring 800-1000 Sq. Feet with adequate carpet area at Missa in order to shift the current location of the Missa Branch/Office of the respondent no. 1 Bank; and secondly, a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to adhere and to abide by the terms and conditions of the lease agreement dtd. 1/8/2019 executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 Bank. 9. There is no dispute that the respondent no. 1 Bank is an instrumentality of the State and comes within the ambit and scope of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. There is also no dispute that the respondent no. 1 Bank can enter into contracts in order to enable it to discharge its functions. The lease agreement dtd. 1/8/2019 has been executed between the petitioner on one hand and the respondent no. 1 Bank on the other hand. The mere fact that one of the parties to the lease agreement i.e. the respondent no. 1 Bank is a public sector bank will not make the lease agreement a statutory one. The lease agreement dtd. 1/8/2019 has been executed between the petitioner on one hand and the respondent no. 1 Bank on the other hand. The mere fact that one of the parties to the lease agreement i.e. the respondent no. 1 Bank is a public sector bank will not make the lease agreement a statutory one. Any dispute arising out of the terms and conditions of such contract or alleged breaches have to be settled by the ordinary principles of law of contract. The dispute about the meaning of a covenant in a contract or its enforceability have to be determined according to the usual principles of the Contract Act. Every act of a statutory body or an instrumentality of the State need not necessarily involve an exercise of statutory power. A statutory body or an instrumentality of the State, like private parties, has power to contract or deal with properties. Such activities may not raise any issue of public law. In the case in hand, the lease agreement between the parties is in the realm of private law and it is not a statutory contract. The disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract cannot be agitated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is a matter for adjudication by a civil Court or in arbitration if provided in the contract. If the petitioner is of the view that due to the alleged breach of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement by the respondent no. 1 Bank, the petitioner is going to suffer loss and whether the action of purported breach on the part of the respondent Bank is justified or not are not matters which can be agitated and decided in a writ petition. In such view of the matter, the second prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition is found not sustainable. 10. With regard to the first prayer in this writ petition, this Court is of the view that the said prayer is also not maintainable. The petitioner does not have the locus standi to challenge the tender process initiated by the respondent no. 1 Bank on the premises he has averred in this writ petition, mentioned above. 11. 10. With regard to the first prayer in this writ petition, this Court is of the view that the said prayer is also not maintainable. The petitioner does not have the locus standi to challenge the tender process initiated by the respondent no. 1 Bank on the premises he has averred in this writ petition, mentioned above. 11. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the writ petition with the above two prayers cannot be entertained and accordingly, the writ petition is not entertained. No cost.