AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.Nagaresh, J
The petitioner, who has entered into agreement with the respondents for slaughter tapping of rubber trees, seeks orders from this Court to get the lease period extended.
The petitioner took on lease slaughter tapping of rubber trees in five Blocks in Aralam Farm owned by the respondents, paying ₹36,84,130/-. Entire amount was remitted in advance and Ext.P1 agreement was executed. The period of tapping was from 01.04.2019 to 30.09.2021. The Covid-19 pandemic interrupted the slaughter tapping work. Triple Lockdown was imposed in Aralam. The respondents assured the petitioner that some measures can be taken to attenuate the loss that may be suffered by the petitioner.
The petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent seeking to extend the lease period up to 31.03.2022 as there occurred total loss of nine months of tapping due to pandemic. The presence of wild elephants in large numbers in the Farm affected tapping. Heavy and torrential rains also made tapping impossible for considerable time. The tapping abruptly stopped from 16.09.2021 for no fault of the petitioner. The petitioner filed WP(C) No.19850/2021 seeking extension of the period of lease. The respondents thereupon extended the period of lease by two months, up to 30.11.2021, as per Ext.P6.
The petitioner states that still he could not resume tapping due to torrential rains and hence submitted Ext.P8 representation seeking extension of lease up to 31.08.2022. The contract could not be taken to its logical end due to vis major like pandemic, floods and torrential rains, which fact is not in dispute. Hence, the petitioner should be given extension of lease period in the interest of justice, contended the petitioner.
The respondents contested the writ petition, filing statement. The respondents stated that the lockdown was there only for a period of one month and 10 days. The State Government had opened agricultural/plantation sector from lockdown very early. The Farm was fully opened with effect from 03.05.2020. Considering the lockdown period and the representation submitted by the petitioner, extension was granted for a period of two months. Now, the contract for cutting and removing of rubber trees in the sector has been awarded. The said bidder has to cut and remove the trees from 01.12.2021 and complete the work by 15.02.2022. Hence, no further extension can be granted to the petitioner.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The lease for slaughter tapping granted to the petitioner was for the period from 01.04.2019 to 30.09.2021. True that there was lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic. But, the lockdown was only for a brief period of one month and 10 days. The Government had opened the agricultural sector for activities. The Aralam Farm was fully opened from 03.05.2020.
The petitioner earlier approached this Court filing WP(C) No.19850/2021. The petitioner had sought for extension of lease till 30.06.2022 in that writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of noting that lease extension has been granted by the respondents till 30.11.2021. The said judgment has become final. Therefore, the petitioner cannot rely on any of the factual grounds that existed at the time of disposal of the said writ petition, for extension.
The petitioner has a case that due to torrential rains, the tapping could not be resumed even after Ext.P7 judgment and hence lease period has to be extended. The petitioner states that this is a case of vis major. It has to be noted that the respondents, for the purpose of replanting the Farm, have already floated tenders and finalised the agreement for cutting of rubber trees from the Farm. The period given to the said Contractor starts from 01.12.2021 and that work has to be completed by 15.02.2022. Any further extension given to the petitioner would interfere with the contract of cutting of trees now finalised by the petitioner. If the petitioner has suffered any loss due to vis major, the remedy of the petitioner is before civil courts.
The writ petition is therefore without any force or merit and it is hence dismissed.