Alpna Appliances Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors

Heard finally with consent.

By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.12.2011, whereby the lease deed has been cancelled and the order dated

6.12.2013 whereby the appeal against the order of cancellation of lease has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated

19.9.2014 passed under Section 5 of the M.P. Public Premises (Eviction) Act, 1974.

In nutshell, the petitioner’s case is that the petitioner was granted lease for the land in question vide lease agreement dated 19.12.1986 and the

petitioner had set up a unit for production of electrical appliances but on account of the setback suffered by it, the regular production could not be

carried out after 2004-05. The notices were issued to the petitioner, thereafter the impugned orders have been passed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had taken adequate steps for restoration of the unit, therefore, the lease of the petitioner

could not have cancelled.

As against this learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned orders and have submitted that the writ court is not the proper

remedy and the alternate remedies are available.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that vide order dated 13.12.2011 the lease of the petitioner

has been cancelled on the ground that the unit is lying closed and Clause 19 of the lease deed has been violated and the dues of the corporation and

the interest has not been paid, which also resulted into violation of Clause 2 of the lease deed. The order further reflects that inspite of the notice no

one had appeared for the petitioner before the competent authority. The appellate order dated 6.12.2013 discloses that the opportunity was given to

the petitioner to restore the unit but inspite of that the production was not commenced, therefore, the appeal was dismissed. So far as the correctness

of the grounds on which the lease is cancelled, the same involves factual dispute and the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sajni d/o

Dwardadas Bajaj Vs. Indore Development Authority and others reported in 2012(1) MPLJ 53 has held as under:-

“19. Having considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that both the parties are at one on the point that

this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot examine the correctness and validity of the impugned order of

cancellation of lease deed. We are also of the view that the questions, which are involved in the matter, relate truly of the civil right of the parties

flowing from the lease deed. These questions cannot be effectively decided in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as has been

held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of UP and others v. Mahajara Dharmendra Prasad Singh (supra). The questions arising out of the

lease; such as, whether there has been breach of covenant under the lease, whether there was a valid sanction for the construction, which has been

raised by the petitioner, the stand of the petitioner that there was obstruction in raising the further construction and that the sanction of building map by

the Indore Municipal Corporation was made known to the IDA and at no point of time, the IDA objected for raising of the said construction, are all

questions, which cannot be decided in this writ petition. These are the questions, which require trial either in regular civil proceedings or in a

proceeding for eviction, if initiated by the IDA under the Public Premises Eviction Act. In the circumstances, we refrain ourselves from deciding these

disputed questions of fact in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.â€​

As against the order of cancellation of lease the proper remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the civil court and establish the factual issues

on the basis of which he has challenged the impugned order.

So far as the order dated 19.9.2014 passed under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 is concerned, the said

order is an appealable order under Section 9 of the Act, therefore, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal available against that

order, hence no case for entertaining the challenge to the said order directly in the writ petition is made out.

That apart, the reply filed by the respondents also reveals that in pursuance to the eviction order the possession of land has already been taken from

the petitioner.

In the aforesaid circumstances, no case is made out to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however with liberty to the

petitioner to avail such other alternate remedies as are available in law.

C.C. as per rules.