9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... einafter referred to as the appellant-Sansthan] is a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The main object of the appellant-Sansthan is to work for the social, economic, educational and cultural upliftment of the people. The appellant-Sansthan is the sole and exclusive owner of multistoreyed building known as Chandra Bhanu Gupta Smarak Nav Chetna Kendra located at No. 10, Ashok Marg in the city of Lucknow (U.P.). On 11.11.1980, the respondent- Corporation took for office accommodation an area measuring 14,925 square feet on the first floor of the multi-storeyed building of the appellant-Sansthan on monthly rent of ₹ 47,760/- @ ₹ 3.20p per square foot, which comprised (a) basic rent @ ₹ 2/- per square foot amounting to ₹ 29,850/- and (b) the balance amount of ₹ 17,910/- @ ₹ 1.20p per square foot towards the ancillary services provided for the said accommodation in the form of elevators (lifts), a designated area for parking of vehicles, lights for public and common passages and sewerages etc. under a lease granted by the appellant-Sansthan to the respondent-Corporation on 01.12.1980. 3. It is the case of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 was filed under Order XI Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code for summoning of the original lease deeds from the appellant- Sansthan. 5. Learned Additional District Judge (Special Judge, E.C. Act), Lucknow, had rejected both the above-said applications. Being aggrieved, the respondent-Corporation has assailed the order of the Trial Court by way of Writ Petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the learned Trial Court has wrongly rejected the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act as the subject-matter of the suit is arbitral with further direction to the learned Additional District Judge (Special Judge, E.C. Act), Lucknow, to refer the matter to arbitration and both the parties may appoint their Arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the lease agreement. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-Sansthan has filed this appeal, by special leave, challenging the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. 7. When the matter came up before the Court on 24.03.2006, this Court passed the following orders:- I.A. No. 2 of 2005 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court so that this Court will be in a position to pass a detailed order. Treat this matter as part-heard. Post this matter at 2.00 PM on 12th July, 2006. As directed Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation placed before us a Fax Message from U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited in regard to the total rent payable to the appellant upto 30.06.2006. The Fax Message reads thus: U.P. ELECTRONICS CORPORATION LTD. Total rent payable to BSS upto 30.06.2006 Financial year Rent UIL UPLC TDS Paid 1 2 3 4 5 Upto 31.3.2001 3556068.75 948285.00 2367966.75 558742.50 2001-2002 1188104.00 389542.50 218145.00 85700.00 2002-2003 948285.00 558742.50 389542.50 85700.00 2003-2004 948285.00 558742.50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onics Corporation Limited has not paid the electricity charges and water and sewerage taxes to the authorities concerned in full. The U.P. Electronics Corporation Limited is directed to pay the entire arrears to the authorities concerned within four week from today. This order is passed as an interim measure without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties. It is open to both the parties to file additional documents. Treat this matter as part-heard. Post after six weeks for reporting compliance of the aforesaid directions. Pendency of this appeal before this Court will not prevent the parties from settling the matter amicably. 10. The appeal was listed for hearing on 08.09.2006, when further following order was recorded:- Learned senior counsel for the appellant has placed before us a fresh calculation memo with the Statement of Accounts duly stamped by a Chartered Accountant. Mr. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent seeks time to respond to the Memo of Calculation filed now. Three weeks time is granted for the purpose. The respondent is directed to file reply to this Calculation Memo within the said time. Parties will disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted its statement of accounts in which a total sum of ₹ 95,09,467.50 has been claimed as arrears of rent for the Front Block and the Tower Block, measuring 17,925 sq. ft. of area, out of which a sum of ₹ 32,69,155.50 in terms of interim order dated 12.07.2006 passed by this Court has been paid to the appellant-Sansthan by the respondent-Corporation for 40% area in its occupation. In addition to the arrears of rent from July 1997 to June 2006, the appellant-Sansthan has claimed a sum of ₹ 6,46,645.00 in regard to TDS Certificates. Further, a sum of ₹ 13,38,492.43 has been claimed on account of water sewerage tax from July 1997 to June 2006. The appellant-Sansthan has also claimed a sum of ₹ 40,95,867/- on account of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the arrears of rent in relation to 15,925 sq. ft. area which was let out to the respondent-Corporation in the year 1980. 14. In response to the order of this Court, the respondent- Corporation has filed affidavit dated 18.11.2006 along with details of calculations of arrears of rent of 40% area; arrears of rent of 60% area and also details of calculation of amount for water sewerage tax. The stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use and occupation of M/s Uptron India Limited, which is a Sick Industrial Company, has already been given to the appellant- Sansthan and the payment of rent for the said area is not covered under the directions of this Court. It is stated that the calculation chart submitted by the appellant-Sansthan showing the amount due and payable pertains to 60% portion for which rent was paid by M/s Uptron India Limited through the respondent-Corporation and the first part of the calculation chart filed by the appellant-Sansthan indicating total amount of ₹ 66,74,131.50 due, is in respect of 60% portion of the leased area. It is also stated that the respondent-Corporation was always ready and willing to make payment of agreed rent for the portion under its occupation and, in fact, it had tendered the amount, which was not accepted by the appellant-Sansthan. It is also stated in the affidavit that Clause I(3) of the lease agreement as alleged by the appellant-Sansthan is not applicable in the present case and as such no interest at the rate of 12%, as claimed, is payable and the appellant-Sansthan has calculated the interest on total amount of rent payable in respect of total area inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of the original lease deed from the appellant-Sansthan. The learned Additional District Judge (Special Judge, E.C. Act), Lucknow, has rejected both the applications. The High Court in writ petition filed by the respondent-Corporation against the order of the trial court, allowed the application of the respondent-Corporation filed under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act. It was the specific case of the respondent-Corporation before the High Court that the original agreements are in the possession of the appellant- Sansthan, whereas the stand of the appellant-Sansthan was that the original agreements are not in its possession. The respondent-Corporation placed on record of the trial court photocopies of the agreements along with an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act. The High Court, in our view, has rightly held that the photocopies of the lease agreements could be taken on record under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for ascertaining the existence of arbitration clause. Thus, the dispute raised by the appellant-Sansthan against the respondent-Corporation in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the lease agreement is arbitral. 22. Now, the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e do not find it a fit case to grant relief to the appellant-Sansthan as claimed by it in its calculation statement which is vehemently disputed by the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, the contention of the appellant-Sansthan that this Court can grant the payment of balance amount of arrears of rent and arrears of water sewerage tax and interest on arrears of rent detailed in calculation statement submitted before this Court, does not merit acceptance. 25. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel, has fairly stated that in Civil Suit No.16/2000 the appellant-Sansthan has not claimed the arrears of rent and water sewerage tax for the additional area of 2000 sq. ft., which was subsequently let out to the respondent-Corporation, as such the claim to that extent in terms of the calculation statement filed before this Court is not pressed in this appeal. He submitted that for claiming the relief for 2000 sq. ft. area, the appellant- Sansthan will take appropriate proceedings before the Court/Forum. We do not wish to express any views on this aspect of the matter in this appeal. 26. In this view of the matter, we do not find any perversity or infirmity in the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
