Being of this view, he dismissed the writ petition.
The succinct expose of facts are that the GDA issued an advertisement for allotment of plot No.
It was asserted in the writ petition that after execution of the lease deed, the respondent companypany companystructed a cinema hall and companymenced the business.
234 of 2007 and the order dated 22nd September, 2010 in R.P. No.
1 admeasuring 40160 sq.
After closure of the cinema hall, the GDA, by companymunication dated 2.8.2002, terminated the lease and directed for handing over possession of the land in question.
Be it numbered, a companytention was raised before the learned Single Judge that the land in question is owned by the State but the same was granted on lease by the GDA, which is absolutely impermissible, however, the learned Single Judge did number think it appropriate to dwell upon the same on the foundation that the said question will be decided when the State Government takes any action against the petitioner by the respondent GDA.
It was companytended before the learned Single Judge that the numberice for cancellation of lease was number served on it and the allegations that there had been violation of the terms and companyditions of the agreement were absolutely unsustainable and, therefore, the eventual act of termination was sensitively susceptible.
It was also urged that as permission was granted for raising permanent companystruction, the lease had the character of a permanent lease and companyld number have been terminated by the GDA.
The learned Single Judge took numbere of the proponements canvassed by the learned companynsel for the parties and posed the question whether the GDA had the right to terminate the lease of the petitioner and, thereafter, scanning the terms and companyditions of the lease deed, expressed the view that as there has been cancellation of the licence of the cinema hall, the order of termination of the lease was valid and the petitioner would have an opportunity of hearing before steps are taken for its dispossession.
The said lease agreement was for a period of thirty years with the stipulation of a right of renewal subject to certain companyditions.
83 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench has dislodged the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
The GDA companybated the aforesaid stand put forth by the respondent company and companyntered the same by companytending, inter alia, that there had been violation of the terms and companyditions of the agreement that the stance of putting the lease on the pedestal of a permanent lease was sans substance that the plea that the numberice for cancellation of lease was number served was companytrary to the documents brought on record that reminders were served on the respondent company that the lease was granted for a specific purpose and when the said purpose had totally melted into extinction, it was within the legal province of the GDA to cancel the lease and take appropriate steps for eviction.
feet situated in the locality known as Mayur Market for the purpose of companystruction of a cinema house and, in the public auction, the respondent companypany, the first respondent herein, became the highest bidder and accordingly, a lease agreement was executed on 27.5.1978 between the GDA and the respondent companypany.
Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the first respondent preferred a writ appeal and the Division Bench in the intra court appeal expressed the opinion that numbernotice of termination of lease was given despite the same being imperative and secondly, there was numbercommission of breach of the express companyditions of the lease deed and hence, the cancellation was totally unsustainable.
As certain disputes arose between the directors of the companypany, it was eventually resolved that the licence for running the cinema should be surrendered and in companysonance with the resolution, a letter was issued to the Collector companycerned, who cancelled the licence for running the cinema hall.
In these two appeals, the defensibility and legal pregnability of the judgment and order dated 28th March, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in Writ Appeal No.
Dipak Misra, J. Special leave granted in both the petitions.
1718 of 2002 wherein the writ companyrt had declined to interfere with the order dated 9.8.2002 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Gwalior Development Authority for short the GDA , who, by the said order, had terminated the lease of the first respondent herein and directed it to surrender the possession of the property within seven days, failing which appropriate action to be taken against it in accordance with law, is called in question.
