Court Orders Eviction for Violating Lease Deed Clauses

The Associated Journals Ltd And Anr.   Versus Land And Development Office

The Associated Journals Ltd And Anr.   Versus Land And Development Office - TMI Issues Involved:

1. Violation of Lease Deed Clauses.
2. Misuse of the subject premises.
3. Transfer of property shares without permission.
4. Allegations of mala fide and political motives.
5. Applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Lease Deed Clauses:

The court found that Associated Journals Limited (AJL) had violated Clauses III(7) and III(13) of the Lease Deed. The premises, originally leased for running a press, had not been used for this purpose for at least ten years. Instead, it was used for commercial purposes, violating Clause III(7). Additionally, unauthorized construction and sub-letting without permission violated Clause III(13).

2. Misuse of the Subject Premises:

The court noted that the premises were rented out to various commercial entities, including the Passport Office and Tata Consultancy Agency, while the basement was vacant. The ground floor was used for unauthorized construction. The inspection revealed no press activity, confirming misuse of the premises.

3. Transfer of Property Shares without Permission:

The court observed that AJL transferred almost 100% of its shares to another company, Young Indian, without the lessor's permission, violating Clause III(13). This transfer, though not a sale, mortgage, or gift, fell under 'or otherwise' and was considered a surreptitious transfer of beneficial interest.

4. Allegations of Mala Fide and Political Motives:

The court dismissed the petitioners' allegations of mala fide and political motives as bald and unspecific. It found no evidence to support claims of bias or ulterior motives. The court emphasized that the burden of proving mala fide is heavy and requires high credibility, which the petitioners failed to provide.

5. Applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971:

The court upheld the applicability of the PP Act, noting that the premises could be regarded as 'public premises' under the Act. It cited precedents affirming that the correctness of lease determination should be decided under the PP Act. The impugned order adhered to natural justice principles, issuing a Show-Cause Notice and conducting an inspection.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the dominant purpose of the lease, running a press, was lost. It justified the respondent's re-entry into the premises and upheld the impugned order, allowing eviction proceedings under the PP Act if the petitioners did not vacate within two weeks. The petition was disposed of accordingly.