Whether the respondent no. 1 who is occupying the 16th floor of the building in question,has not paid a single rupee onaccount of lease rent, maintenance charges, electricity chargesand other charges and, therefore, the order directing restorationof electricity without requiring the tenantsub lessee to pay the requisite charges is totally without jurisdiction. ?
In view of the aforesaid discussion we set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court and direct as under:
I. We are of the view that respondent no. 1 must pay the following amounts for the restoration of electricity:
i) Lease Rent of Rs.7,29,240 (for the period from
01.02.2012 to 02.12.2019).
ii) Maintenance charges of Rs.2,11,20,000 (@
Rs.2,20,000 per month from 01.02.2012 to
31.01.2020).
iii) Electricity charges of Rs.1,05,60,000 (@ Rs.1,10,000
per month from 01.02.2012 to 31.01.2020).
II. Out of the total of Rs. 3,24,09,240 payable by respondent
no.1, we direct it to pay Rs.1,00,00,000 within one month
from today. Respondent no.1 shall pay the rest of the amount
in three equal instalments of Rs.74,69,746, Rs.74,69,747,
and Rs. Rs.74,69,747 to be paid on 15.03.2020, 15.04.2020
and 15.05.2020 respectively.
III. In case the respondent no.1 pays the amount of
Rs.1,00,00,000/ to the petitioner then within 3 days of this
payment, the petitioner shall restore the electricity.
IV. With respect to the lease rent, electricity charges,
maintenance charges and other charges, the petitioner shall
raise a bill on or before 10th day of each month. The first
such bill shall be raised on 10th March, 2020 and the amount
shall be paid by respondent no.1 latest by 20th March, 2020.
Even in case of any dispute, it shall deposit a sum of
Rs.3,50,000/ every month without prejudice to the rights of
the parties. The dispute with regard to the remaining
amount can be decided in accordance with law.
V. The respondent no.1 through its Chief Executive
(Authorised Signatory) shall file an affidavit undertaking to
comply with the aforesaid direction within 2 weeks from
today.
VI. If any of these conditions are violated, the petitioner shall
be entitled to disconnect the electricity.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 21341 OF 2019
INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LIMITED …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SHIVA JUTE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
(AUTHORISED SIGNATORY) & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Deepak Gupta, J.
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 16th floor of the building in question
comprising about 29,445 sq. ft., has not paid a single rupee on
1
account of lease rent, maintenance charges, electricity charges
and other charges and, therefore, the order directing restoration
of electricity without requiring the tenantsub 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 24Parganas, Kolkata. The 16th floor of the
said building was divided into 3 offices. The entire 16th floor
along with 5 car parking spaces was subleased by the petitioner
in favour of the respondent no. 2 M/s. Pearl Studios Pvt. Ltd.,
which in turn subleased 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 rent up to 02.12.2019.
2
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 sublease 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 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.
3
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 per sq. ft.
per month as maintenance charges inclusive of taxes for the 3
office areas measuring 29,445 sq. ft. Reference has been made to
clause 5 and 7 of the lease deed, which are reproduced as under:
“V. To bear and pay proportionate share of all kinds of
expenses for all periodical repairs for common areas of
the said building, Air conditioning, additions, alterations,
treatment, polishing, maintaining, rebuilding and
cleaning, painting, entrances, common landings
corridors, staircases, sewers, drains pipes, electric lines
and installation, insurance and other conveniences
including annual maintenance charges in respect thereof
as may be incurred by the SubLessor, from time to time
and such proportionate share together with service tax
shall be calculated and apportioned by the SubLessor
conclusively and the same shall be binding on the SubLessee.
xxx xxx xxx
VII. It is made clear that the said service and
maintenance together with airconditioning charges as
envisaged herein to be provided by the SubLessor to the
SubLessee and such charges for the same shall be based
upon all kinds of actual proportionate costs, charges and
expenses of whatsoever nature plus 20% (twenty percent)
management fee to be levied thereon and service tax as
may be applicable shall be paid by the SubLessee to the
SubLessor during the subsistence of this SubLease and
such proportionate share together with service tax shall
be calculated and apportioned by the SubLessor
conclusively and the same shall be binding on the Sub4
Lessee, provided further it is made clear that the SubLessee shall pay aforesaid charges for common services
and maintenance as enumerated in the Fifth Schedule as
stated hereunder and airconditioning charges to be
provided in the said subdemised space at the fixed rate
of Rs.15/ per Sq.ft. for a period of one year from the date
of commencement hereof and SubLessor shall give
rebate at the rate of Rs. 7/ per Sq.ft. out of the said
charges of Rs.15/ per Sq.ft. for the initial period of two
months from the date of commencement and thereafter
with effect from 15th November, 2009 until the completion
of one year the SubLessee shall pay at the rate of
Rs.15/ per Sq.ft. per month as stated hereinabove.”
7. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent no.1 has
not paid a single rupee as maintenance charges and as per the
terms of the lease deed, Rs.15/ per sq. ft. was to be paid except
for the months of August and September, 2009 for which a
rebate of Rs.7 per sq. ft. was to be given, meaning thereby that
for these two months only Rs.8/ per sq. ft. was to be charged.
On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent no. 1 it is claimed
that no airconditioning is being provided to the premises in its
possession and, therefore, the rate of Rs.15/ per sq. ft. is not
payable. Relying upon clause 7 quoted hereinabove, it is
contended that the amount of Rs.15/ per sq. ft. was payable
only for the first year from commencement of the sublease and,
thereafter, it was to be paid on actual basis plus 20% as
management fees to be levied thereupon and service tax as may
5
be applicable. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 1
that the management never raised invoices on the basis of the
actual expenses incurred by it and, therefore, this amount was
not paid.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and
we make it clear that we are not deciding this plea on merits.
However, we have no doubt in our mind that the sublessee
cannot claim that no amount is payable by it. It has not paid a
single rupee to the petitioner despite occupying the premises for
more than 7 years. We cannot appreciate this conduct of the
sublessee. In a multistoreyed building of this nature there has
to be provision for security guards, cleaning services, lift
operators, parking attendants, etc. When the parties had agreed
that Rs.15/ per sq. ft. per month would be paid in the first year,
we can presume that the sublessee must have satisfied itself
that these are the approximate expenses to be incurred by the
petitioner for maintenance of the building. Since airconditioning
has admittedly not been provided by the petitioner, for the
purpose of this order, we deem it fit and proper to fix the
maintenance charges at 50% of the regular rate by giving a
6
discount of 50% for not providing the airconditioning, which
comes to Rs.7.50 per sq. ft. The maintenance charges payable
@7.50 per sq. ft. for 29,445 sq. ft. works out to Rs.2,20,837.50
per month which are rounded of to 2,20,000/ per month.
9. Coming to the second claim of electricity charges, the
petitioner has claimed minimum demand charges at Rs. 384 per
KVA per month plus electricity duty, transmission and
distribution losses from the electricity bills placed on record by
both the sides. It is not disputed that the entire building has a
sanctioned load of 1445 KVA. The sanctioned load in respect of
the premises on the 16th floor works out to 266.43 KVA. The
contention of the respondent no.1 is that it has hardly used the
premises and is only liable to pay the actual charges for the
electricity consumed by it. It is also contended that since the
petitioner has not raised invoices or produced the bills of actual
consumption of the 16th floor, the respondent no.1 is not liable
make such payment. We find that the respondent no.1 has
placed on record bills of the year 2011 raised by the petitioner in
respect of the same premises to the account of Pearl Studios Pvt.
Ltd.respondent no. 2 and these bills are for a sum of
7
Rs.76,571/ + Rs.59,706/ + Rs.3,96,855/ i.e. total
Rs.5,33,132/, for a period of approximately one month.
Electricity tariff has not come down and the contention of the
respondent no.1 that it is only liable to pay electricity charges at
the rate of Rs. 10,000/, cannot be accepted. The area in its
possession is almost 30,000 sq. ft. Even if there is no airconditioning, the sanctioned load is 266.43 KVA. According to
the bill of 04.11.2019, the demand charges are Rs. 384 per KVA
per month. Therefore, at present the minimum demand charges
for 266.43 KVA works out to Rs.1,02,309.12. In any event, the
respondent no.1 cannot escape its liability has to pay the
minimum demand charges. It is contended that earlier demand
charges were at a lower rate of Rs. 317 per KVA but we are sure
that there may have been some months where the respondent
no.1 may have utilised more than the minimum demand and it is
liable to pay minimum charges which for the purpose of this
order are ascertained at Rs.1,00,000/ per month. In addition to
the minimum demand charges, some fixed charges are payable to
the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. in
addition to the energy consumed charges. Keeping all these
factors into consideration we feel that as an interim measure the
8
respondent no.1 shall pay at least Rs.1,10,000/ per month on
this account.
10. It was also urged on behalf of the respondent no.1 that
there were some periods during which the electricity was
disconnected and, therefore, it should not be asked to pay any
charges for the said period. We are not in agreement with the
said submission. The respondent no.1 did not pay a single rupee
either on account of lease rent, maintenance charges, electricity
charges or other charges and in such event, the petitioner had no
option but to disconnect the electricity. We are, therefore, of the
view that the High Court clearly misdirected itself in directing
restoration of the electricity without ensuring payment of some
amount to the petitioner.
11. As far as the claim of the petitioner for other charges
including water charges are concerned, we are not passing any
order at this stage. We are also not passing any order for
payment of interest at this stage. These can be finally
determined by the Court which decides the matter. Therefore,
the liability only on account of minimum electricity charges of
9
Rs.1,10,000/ per month from 01.02.2012 till 31.01.2020 works
out to Rs.1,05,60,000/.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion we set aside the order of
the Calcutta High Court and direct as under:
I. We are of the view that respondent no. 1 must pay the
following amounts for the restoration of electricity:
i) Lease Rent of Rs.7,29,240 (for the period from
01.02.2012 to 02.12.2019).
ii) Maintenance charges of Rs.2,11,20,000 (@
Rs.2,20,000 per month from 01.02.2012 to
31.01.2020).
iii) Electricity charges of Rs.1,05,60,000 (@ Rs.1,10,000
per month from 01.02.2012 to 31.01.2020).
II. Out of the total of Rs. 3,24,09,240 payable by respondent
no.1, we direct it to pay Rs.1,00,00,000 within one month
from today. Respondent no.1 shall pay the rest of the amount
in three equal instalments of Rs.74,69,746, Rs.74,69,747,
and Rs. Rs.74,69,747 to be paid on 15.03.2020, 15.04.2020
and 15.05.2020 respectively.
10
III. In case the respondent no.1 pays the amount of
Rs.1,00,00,000/ to the petitioner then within 3 days of this
payment, the petitioner shall restore the electricity.
IV. With respect to the lease rent, electricity charges,
maintenance charges and other charges, the petitioner shall
raise a bill on or before 10th day of each month. The first
such bill shall be raised on 10th March, 2020 and the amount
shall be paid by respondent no.1 latest by 20th March, 2020.
Even in case of any dispute, it shall deposit a sum of
Rs.3,50,000/ every month without prejudice to the rights of
the parties. The dispute with regard to the remaining
amount can be decided in accordance with law.
V. The respondent no.1 through its Chief Executive
(Authorised Signatory) shall file an affidavit undertaking to
comply with the aforesaid direction within 2 weeks from
today.
VI. If any of these conditions are violated, the petitioner shall
be entitled to disconnect the electricity.
11
13. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
...................................J.
(Deepak Gupta)
..................................J.
(Aniruddha Bose)
New Delhi
February 7, 2020
12
In view of the aforesaid discussion we set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court and direct as under:
I. We are of the view that respondent no. 1 must pay the following amounts for the restoration of electricity:
i) Lease Rent of Rs.7,29,240 (for the period from
01.02.2012 to 02.12.2019).
ii) Maintenance charges of Rs.2,11,20,000 (@
Rs.2,20,000 per month from 01.02.2012 to
31.01.2020).
iii) Electricity charges of Rs.1,05,60,000 (@ Rs.1,10,000
per month from 01.02.2012 to 31.01.2020).
II. Out of the total of Rs. 3,24,09,240 payable by respondent
no.1, we direct it to pay Rs.1,00,00,000 within one month
from today. Respondent no.1 shall pay the rest of the amount
in three equal instalments of Rs.74,69,746, Rs.74,69,747,
and Rs. Rs.74,69,747 to be paid on 15.03.2020, 15.04.2020
and 15.05.2020 respectively.
III. In case the respondent no.1 pays the amount of
Rs.1,00,00,000/ to the petitioner then within 3 days of this
payment, the petitioner shall restore the electricity.
IV. With respect to the lease rent, electricity charges,
maintenance charges and other charges, the petitioner shall
raise a bill on or before 10th day of each month. The first
such bill shall be raised on 10th March, 2020 and the amount
shall be paid by respondent no.1 latest by 20th March, 2020.
Even in case of any dispute, it shall deposit a sum of
Rs.3,50,000/ every month without prejudice to the rights of
the parties. The dispute with regard to the remaining
amount can be decided in accordance with law.
V. The respondent no.1 through its Chief Executive
(Authorised Signatory) shall file an affidavit undertaking to
comply with the aforesaid direction within 2 weeks from
today.
VI. If any of these conditions are violated, the petitioner shall
be entitled to disconnect the electricity.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 21341 OF 2019
INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LIMITED …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
SHIVA JUTE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
(AUTHORISED SIGNATORY) & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Deepak Gupta, J.
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 16th floor of the building in question
comprising about 29,445 sq. ft., has not paid a single rupee on
1
account of lease rent, maintenance charges, electricity charges
and other charges and, therefore, the order directing restoration
of electricity without requiring the tenantsub 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 24Parganas, Kolkata. The 16th floor of the
said building was divided into 3 offices. The entire 16th floor
along with 5 car parking spaces was subleased by the petitioner
in favour of the respondent no. 2 M/s. Pearl Studios Pvt. Ltd.,
which in turn subleased 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 rent up to 02.12.2019.
2
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 sublease 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 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.
3
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 per sq. ft.
per month as maintenance charges inclusive of taxes for the 3
office areas measuring 29,445 sq. ft. Reference has been made to
clause 5 and 7 of the lease deed, which are reproduced as under:
“V. To bear and pay proportionate share of all kinds of
expenses for all periodical repairs for common areas of
the said building, Air conditioning, additions, alterations,
treatment, polishing, maintaining, rebuilding and
cleaning, painting, entrances, common landings
corridors, staircases, sewers, drains pipes, electric lines
and installation, insurance and other conveniences
including annual maintenance charges in respect thereof
as may be incurred by the SubLessor, from time to time
and such proportionate share together with service tax
shall be calculated and apportioned by the SubLessor
conclusively and the same shall be binding on the SubLessee.
xxx xxx xxx
VII. It is made clear that the said service and
maintenance together with airconditioning charges as
envisaged herein to be provided by the SubLessor to the
SubLessee and such charges for the same shall be based
upon all kinds of actual proportionate costs, charges and
expenses of whatsoever nature plus 20% (twenty percent)
management fee to be levied thereon and service tax as
may be applicable shall be paid by the SubLessee to the
SubLessor during the subsistence of this SubLease and
such proportionate share together with service tax shall
be calculated and apportioned by the SubLessor
conclusively and the same shall be binding on the Sub4
Lessee, provided further it is made clear that the SubLessee shall pay aforesaid charges for common services
and maintenance as enumerated in the Fifth Schedule as
stated hereunder and airconditioning charges to be
provided in the said subdemised space at the fixed rate
of Rs.15/ per Sq.ft. for a period of one year from the date
of commencement hereof and SubLessor shall give
rebate at the rate of Rs. 7/ per Sq.ft. out of the said
charges of Rs.15/ per Sq.ft. for the initial period of two
months from the date of commencement and thereafter
with effect from 15th November, 2009 until the completion
of one year the SubLessee shall pay at the rate of
Rs.15/ per Sq.ft. per month as stated hereinabove.”
7. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent no.1 has
not paid a single rupee as maintenance charges and as per the
terms of the lease deed, Rs.15/ per sq. ft. was to be paid except
for the months of August and September, 2009 for which a
rebate of Rs.7 per sq. ft. was to be given, meaning thereby that
for these two months only Rs.8/ per sq. ft. was to be charged.
On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent no. 1 it is claimed
that no airconditioning is being provided to the premises in its
possession and, therefore, the rate of Rs.15/ per sq. ft. is not
payable. Relying upon clause 7 quoted hereinabove, it is
contended that the amount of Rs.15/ per sq. ft. was payable
only for the first year from commencement of the sublease and,
thereafter, it was to be paid on actual basis plus 20% as
management fees to be levied thereupon and service tax as may
5
be applicable. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 1
that the management never raised invoices on the basis of the
actual expenses incurred by it and, therefore, this amount was
not paid.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and
we make it clear that we are not deciding this plea on merits.
However, we have no doubt in our mind that the sublessee
cannot claim that no amount is payable by it. It has not paid a
single rupee to the petitioner despite occupying the premises for
more than 7 years. We cannot appreciate this conduct of the
sublessee. In a multistoreyed building of this nature there has
to be provision for security guards, cleaning services, lift
operators, parking attendants, etc. When the parties had agreed
that Rs.15/ per sq. ft. per month would be paid in the first year,
we can presume that the sublessee must have satisfied itself
that these are the approximate expenses to be incurred by the
petitioner for maintenance of the building. Since airconditioning
has admittedly not been provided by the petitioner, for the
purpose of this order, we deem it fit and proper to fix the
maintenance charges at 50% of the regular rate by giving a
6
discount of 50% for not providing the airconditioning, which
comes to Rs.7.50 per sq. ft. The maintenance charges payable
@7.50 per sq. ft. for 29,445 sq. ft. works out to Rs.2,20,837.50
per month which are rounded of to 2,20,000/ per month.
9. Coming to the second claim of electricity charges, the
petitioner has claimed minimum demand charges at Rs. 384 per
KVA per month plus electricity duty, transmission and
distribution losses from the electricity bills placed on record by
both the sides. It is not disputed that the entire building has a
sanctioned load of 1445 KVA. The sanctioned load in respect of
the premises on the 16th floor works out to 266.43 KVA. The
contention of the respondent no.1 is that it has hardly used the
premises and is only liable to pay the actual charges for the
electricity consumed by it. It is also contended that since the
petitioner has not raised invoices or produced the bills of actual
consumption of the 16th floor, the respondent no.1 is not liable
make such payment. We find that the respondent no.1 has
placed on record bills of the year 2011 raised by the petitioner in
respect of the same premises to the account of Pearl Studios Pvt.
Ltd.respondent no. 2 and these bills are for a sum of
7
Rs.76,571/ + Rs.59,706/ + Rs.3,96,855/ i.e. total
Rs.5,33,132/, for a period of approximately one month.
Electricity tariff has not come down and the contention of the
respondent no.1 that it is only liable to pay electricity charges at
the rate of Rs. 10,000/, cannot be accepted. The area in its
possession is almost 30,000 sq. ft. Even if there is no airconditioning, the sanctioned load is 266.43 KVA. According to
the bill of 04.11.2019, the demand charges are Rs. 384 per KVA
per month. Therefore, at present the minimum demand charges
for 266.43 KVA works out to Rs.1,02,309.12. In any event, the
respondent no.1 cannot escape its liability has to pay the
minimum demand charges. It is contended that earlier demand
charges were at a lower rate of Rs. 317 per KVA but we are sure
that there may have been some months where the respondent
no.1 may have utilised more than the minimum demand and it is
liable to pay minimum charges which for the purpose of this
order are ascertained at Rs.1,00,000/ per month. In addition to
the minimum demand charges, some fixed charges are payable to
the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. in
addition to the energy consumed charges. Keeping all these
factors into consideration we feel that as an interim measure the
8
respondent no.1 shall pay at least Rs.1,10,000/ per month on
this account.
10. It was also urged on behalf of the respondent no.1 that
there were some periods during which the electricity was
disconnected and, therefore, it should not be asked to pay any
charges for the said period. We are not in agreement with the
said submission. The respondent no.1 did not pay a single rupee
either on account of lease rent, maintenance charges, electricity
charges or other charges and in such event, the petitioner had no
option but to disconnect the electricity. We are, therefore, of the
view that the High Court clearly misdirected itself in directing
restoration of the electricity without ensuring payment of some
amount to the petitioner.
11. As far as the claim of the petitioner for other charges
including water charges are concerned, we are not passing any
order at this stage. We are also not passing any order for
payment of interest at this stage. These can be finally
determined by the Court which decides the matter. Therefore,
the liability only on account of minimum electricity charges of
9
Rs.1,10,000/ per month from 01.02.2012 till 31.01.2020 works
out to Rs.1,05,60,000/.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion we set aside the order of
the Calcutta High Court and direct as under:
I. We are of the view that respondent no. 1 must pay the
following amounts for the restoration of electricity:
i) Lease Rent of Rs.7,29,240 (for the period from
01.02.2012 to 02.12.2019).
ii) Maintenance charges of Rs.2,11,20,000 (@
Rs.2,20,000 per month from 01.02.2012 to
31.01.2020).
iii) Electricity charges of Rs.1,05,60,000 (@ Rs.1,10,000
per month from 01.02.2012 to 31.01.2020).
II. Out of the total of Rs. 3,24,09,240 payable by respondent
no.1, we direct it to pay Rs.1,00,00,000 within one month
from today. Respondent no.1 shall pay the rest of the amount
in three equal instalments of Rs.74,69,746, Rs.74,69,747,
and Rs. Rs.74,69,747 to be paid on 15.03.2020, 15.04.2020
and 15.05.2020 respectively.
10
III. In case the respondent no.1 pays the amount of
Rs.1,00,00,000/ to the petitioner then within 3 days of this
payment, the petitioner shall restore the electricity.
IV. With respect to the lease rent, electricity charges,
maintenance charges and other charges, the petitioner shall
raise a bill on or before 10th day of each month. The first
such bill shall be raised on 10th March, 2020 and the amount
shall be paid by respondent no.1 latest by 20th March, 2020.
Even in case of any dispute, it shall deposit a sum of
Rs.3,50,000/ every month without prejudice to the rights of
the parties. The dispute with regard to the remaining
amount can be decided in accordance with law.
V. The respondent no.1 through its Chief Executive
(Authorised Signatory) shall file an affidavit undertaking to
comply with the aforesaid direction within 2 weeks from
today.
VI. If any of these conditions are violated, the petitioner shall
be entitled to disconnect the electricity.
11
13. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
...................................J.
(Deepak Gupta)
..................................J.
(Aniruddha Bose)
New Delhi
February 7, 2020
12
