INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LIMITED versus SHIVA JUTE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE (AUTHORISED SIGNATORY) & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 625 · Decided: 07-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
625
INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LIMITED
v.
SHIVA JUTE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF
EXECUTIVE (AUTHORISED SIGNATORY) & ANR.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21341 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 07, 2020
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Lease:
Sub-Lease – Non payment of lease rent, maintenance charges,
electricity charges and other charges, by sub-lessee – Disconnection
of electricity of the premises of sub-lessee by the lessee – High Court
directed restoration of electricity – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held:
The sub-lessee did not pay a single rupee on any account, hence
the lessee had no option but to disconnect the electricity – High
Court’s order directing restoration of electricity without requiring
the sub-lessee to pay the requisite charges was without jurisdiction
- Sub-lessee directed to pay certain amount towards lease rent,
maintenance charges and electricity charges for resotration of
electricity – Petition disposed of.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 21341 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2019 of the High Court
at Calcutta in C.O. No. 541 of 2019.
Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv., R.K. Khanna, Sayan Ray, Soumo Palit,
Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Kumarjit Banerjee, Gaurav Gupta,
Jaspal Singh, Gaurav Goel, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2020] 2 S.C.R. 625
625
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
626
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
The Order of the Court was passed by
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. This petition is directed against the order passed by the High
Court of Calcutta dated 31.07.2019 in C.O. No.541 of 2019 whereby it
allowed the petition of the respondent no. 1 herein and directed the
petitioner herein to restore the electricity of the property occupied by
the respondent no.1 herein.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 1 who
is occupying the 16thfloor of the building in question comprising about
29,445 sq. ft., has not paid a single rupee on account of lease rent,
maintenance charges, electricity charges and other charges and, therefore,
the order directing restoration of electricity without requiring the tenant-
sub lessee to pay the requisite charges is totally without jurisdiction.
3. We are only referring to the facts which are necessary for
decision of this case and our discussion is restricted to passing an equitable
order. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the petitioner-
Infinity Infotech Parks Limited is a lessee in the building known as
INFINITY BENCHMARK, Bidhannagar, in the District of North
24-Parganas, Kolkata. The 16th floor of the said building was divided
into 3 offices. The entire 16th floor along with 5 car parking spaces was
sub-leased by the petitioner in favour of the respondent no. 2- M/s.Pearl
Studios Pvt. Ltd., which in turn sub-leased the entire premises in favour
of respondent no. 1 vide lease deed dated 01.02.2012 and the admitted
case of the parties is that from 01.02.2012, the respondent no. 1 is in
occupation of the property.  The claim of the petitioner is that it is entitled
to Rs.7,29,240/- on account of lease rentup to 02.12.2019.
4. At the outset, we may note that certain disputes between
petitioner and respondent no. 2 are the subject matter of arbitration
proceedings and, therefore, we are not commenting on the merits of the
same and are confining ourselves to the admitted fact that respondent
no. 1 is in possession of the entire premises from 01.02.2012. We may
also note that an objection was raised that the sub-lease in favour of
respondent no. 1 is unregistered and insufficiently stamped and, therefore,
should be impounded. We feel that this is a matter for the trial court to
decide and we have looked into the lease deed only to strike out a balance
between the parties and anything said in this order is without prejudice
to the rights of the parties with regard to the admissibility of the lease
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
627
deed in evidence.We make it clear that we have passed this order at the
interim stage and any observations made herein are only for passing this
interim order and shall not be taken into consideration while deciding the
main proceedings which must be decided on the basis of the evidence
led before the trial court or the arbitral tribunal.
5. The petitioner claims Rs.7,29,240/- as lease rent from
01.02.2012 to 02.12.2019 which amount is not seriously disputed by the
respondent no. 1.
6. The petitioner has also claimed a sum of Rs.15 p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.