2019 (1) TMI 1779 - HC - Indian Laws

Cancellation of agreement - vacation of shops - Whether in case of suppression of material fact the writ will be held to be maintainable being the writ court of equity? - HELD THAT - It is evident that the lease deed agreement has been entered into in between the parties and as such the same are binding upon both the parties. The lessee are liable to pay the municipal charges enumerated under condition No. 4 while they have been restrained from making any transfer or sublet the aforesaid property or any part thereof to any other person/firm without the prior written permission of the lessor or its representative duly authorised in this regard. There is no dispute about the fact that the litigant who is approaching the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the constitution of India to High Court is supposed to come out with a clean hand and without suppression of material facts and the material facts has been defined which mean material for the purpose of determination of the issue. Here, in the instant case the petitioners all along case is that the impugned orders have been passed without following the principle of natural justice but in fact the show cause notice has been issued and the same has been responded by them, therefore the same is said to be active concealment on their part and thus the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. The ground taken by the petitioners is violation of principle of natural justice but the same has been found to be a ground non-est because show cause notice has been issued which has been responded to, therefore, it will be said to be the material suppression of fact and hence the petitioners deserve to be given any benefit - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the decision to cancel the agreement and eviction orders.
2. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
4. Applicability of the Public Premises (Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
5. Suppression of material facts by the petitioners.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Decision to Cancel the Agreement and Eviction Orders:
The petitioners sought relief to quash the decision taken by the respondents to cancel the lease agreement and the subsequent eviction orders. The respondents argued that the petitioners violated specific conditions of the lease deed, particularly Condition No. 4 (payment of municipal charges) and Condition No. 9 (prohibition on subletting). The court found that the petitioners admitted to the default in paying municipal charges and did not deny the subletting allegations convincingly. Thus, the cancellation of the lease agreement was upheld as there was no illegality in the respondents' actions.

2. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners contended that the principle of natural justice was not followed, as no notice was issued before the adverse action. However, the respondents provided evidence that show cause notices were issued and responded to by the petitioners. The court determined that the petitioners' claim of not receiving a notice was a suppression of material fact. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that suppression of material facts disqualifies a litigant from obtaining relief. Therefore, the argument of violation of principles of natural justice was dismissed.

3. Jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate:
The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar, in issuing the eviction orders. The court clarified that the Sub-Divisional Officer acted in his magisterial capacity upon the request of the Jharkhand State Tourism Development Corporation to secure the property. The court held that even if the jurisdiction was questioned, it would not change the outcome as the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Magistrate would ultimately ensure the protection of state property. Hence, the jurisdictional challenge was deemed an empty formality and futile exercise.

4. Applicability of the Public Premises (Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971:
The petitioners argued that the eviction orders should have been issued under the Public Premises (Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The court held that the lease deed agreement contained specific provisions for termination and eviction, making the application of the Public Premises Act unnecessary. The court further noted that the petitioners, having approached the court by suppressing material facts, did not deserve the benefit of the court's equity.

5. Suppression of Material Facts by the Petitioners:
The court found that the petitioners suppressed material facts by claiming that no notice was issued before the adverse action. The court emphasized that suppression of material facts disqualifies a litigant from obtaining relief and cited multiple Supreme Court judgments supporting this principle. The court concluded that the petitioners approached the court with unclean hands, which warranted the dismissal of their writ petitions.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds of suppression of material facts, violation of lease conditions by the petitioners, and the lack of merit in the arguments regarding natural justice, jurisdiction, and applicability of the Public Premises Act. The decision to cancel the lease agreement and issue eviction orders was upheld.