The High Court has further directed the respondent No.4 herein to process the application for Occupation Certificate.
What is inter alia sought therein is No dues Certificate from the appellant to be submitted to respondent No.4.
Though the respondent No.3 has sought to rely on the same, what is required to be taken numbere is the companymunication dated 09.02.2009 addressed by the respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 indicating the requirement to be companyplied for grant of occupancy certificate.
The same would indicate that the respondent No.3 herein though claimed to have companypleted the companystruction before 31.12.2008 had only sought for issue of No dues Certificate from the appellant herein through the companymunication dated 11.08.2010.
Regulation 7 Permission for extension of time If the Intending Lessee obtains development permission and companymences companystruction accordance with the companyditions of agreement to lease made between him and the Corporation but has been unable to companyplete the companystruction within the time stipulated in the agreement to lease for reasons beyond his companytrol, the Managing Director may permit extension of time for companypletion of buildings, factory, structure or other work on payment of additional premium.
The High Court having companysidered the matter has quashed the demand made through the impugned letter dated 20.04.2016/01.07.2016 and has directed the appellant herein to issue No dues Certificate.
Not putting up the companystruction within the time frame agreed was to attract payment of additional lease premium retrospectively from 06.08.2001 as per the agreed terms.
The appellant is therefore, aggrieved by the order impugned herein.
The fact that the respondent No.3 companypleted companystruction of A Wing of the building known as Arneja Chambers II within the initially extended period i.e. 31.12.2005 is number in dispute.
The respondent No.3 has relied on the companypletion certificate dated 24.12.2008 issued by the architects Page 11 of 18 addressed to the respondent No.4 herein.
7,01,00,000/ Rupees Seven Crores One Lakh was paid to respondent No.3 and a sum of Rs.20,00,000/ Rupees Twenty Lakhs was deposited in terms of the mutual understanding between the parties.
Subsequently, a letter dated 31.01.2011 was issued, whereafter the reminder dated 04.05.2013 was sent by respondent No.3 to the appellant seeking for No dues Certificate.
Ltd., the respondent No.3 herein in terms of the New Bombay Disposal of Land Regulations, 1975.
The said allotment was governed by the Page 2 of 18 terms and companyditions companytained in the Agreement of Lease dated 04.08.1995.
The companystruction was required to be companypleted by the respondent No.3 as per the time frame agreed including the extended time period.
The extension was granted through the companymunication dated 31.07.2007 Annexure P6 .
S. Bopanna,J. Leave granted.
The said extension is in terms of the Regulations 6 and 7 companytained in Regulations of 1975 which read as hereunder Regulations6 Completion of building, factory, structure or other work within the prescribed time The Lessee shall companyplete building, factory structure or other work for which the land has been granted within the time prescribed by the Managing Director.
The appellant City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., CIDCO for short is before this Court in this appeal assailing the order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in P.No.12674 of 2017.
The said order was passed in the writ Signature Not Verified petition instituted by the respondents No.1 and 2 herein Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date 2019.11.06 142112 IST Reason claiming to be aggrieved by the letter dated 20.04.2016, signed on 01.07.2016 issued by the appellant herein to the Page 1 of 18 respondent No.3 herein requiring them to pay the sum of Rs.14,05,60,587/ Rupees Fourteen Crores, Five Lakhs, Sixty Thousand, Five Hundred and Eighty Seven towards additional lease premium up to 30.03.2007 so as to process the request of respondent No.3 for grant of No dues Certificate in their favour which in turn was required to secure Occupation Certificate in respect of the building, from respondent No.4.
