Facts of the Case

Deepak Kejriwal, who runs a sole proprietorship business manufacturing wooden and steel furniture and assembling computer products under the name M/s. Amit Industries, occupied the first floor of a government-owned property under a lease. He challenged a Circular dated 18 August 2022 and a communication dated 31 January 2023 issued by the State of West Bengal fixing the renewal rent for a further 15-year term at Rs.72 per square foot per month.

The petitioner contended that the parties had, through their conduct and correspondence during negotiations, effectively agreed on a renewal at rates other than the enhanced Rs.72/sq.ft. figure, and that continued acceptance of occupation charges at the earlier rate amounted to the respondents having acceded to renewal on his terms.

The respondents maintained throughout the negotiations that they had never agreed to the petitioner's proposed rent, and that the petitioner was merely permitted to continue in occupation while negotiations were ongoing.

The matter was heard by a Single Judge, with the hearing concluding on 03.08.2023 and judgment delivered on 16.08.2023.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a renewal of the lease had come into existence between the parties, or whether the petitioner was merely 'holding over' the property pending unresolved negotiations.
  2. Whether the rent of Rs.72/sq.ft./month fixed by the respondents for renewal was arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution so as to warrant interference under Article 226.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The respondents had, through their conduct in accepting occupation charges at the earlier rate during the negotiation period, effectively agreed to a renewal of the lease on the petitioner's proposed (lower) terms; the rates now sought to be imposed were exorbitant and arbitrary.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The respondents contended that they had at no point agreed to the petitioner's proposed rate; the petitioner had merely been permitted to hold over the property during negotiations, and mere acceptance of occupation charges at the old rate did not amount to a renewal on those terms; the newly fixed rent was neither arbitrary nor exorbitant.

Court Order / Findings

  • On a review of the contemporaneous correspondence, the Court found that the respondents had consistently maintained their stand on the proposed rent and had never agreed to the petitioner's terms, so there was no consensus ad idem for a renewal.
  • The Court held that a renewal requires execution of a fresh deed upon mutually agreed terms, and that mere continuation of occupation and payment of occupation charges at the old rate did not, by itself, constitute a renewal.
  • The Court found nothing 'palpably absurd or exorbitant' in the rates proposed by the respondents to strike them down under Article 226, and no part of the respondents' conduct was found to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14.
  • The writ petition was disposed of holding that there was no renewal of the lease; the petitioner was held to be merely holding over the property, and the respondents were left free to initiate eviction proceedings in due process of law. No costs were awarded.

Important Clarification

This is a lease/property-law decision governed by principles of contract and the concept of 'holding over' under property law, with no GST dimension. It is a useful reminder that mere continuation of occupation on the old rent, pending unresolved renewal negotiations, does not by itself create a binding renewed lease.

Sections Involved

  • Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – principles governing holding over and lease renewal
  • Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 226

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was disposed of in favour of the State respondents (the lessor), holding that no lease renewal had taken place; the petitioner, Deepak Kejriwal, was left as a mere holdover tenant, exposed to future eviction proceedings.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Original Side
  • Case No.: WPO No. 518 of 2023
  • Coram: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
  • Date of Judgment: 16.08.2023 (hearing concluded 03.08.2023)

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.