“‘Lease for Ten Years Only’: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction of Hindustan Steelworks, Dismisses Appeal Under Public Premises Act”
Safiya Malik
The Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra dismissed an appeal challenging the eviction of Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited by the Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata. The Court recorded that the appellant failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional infirmity or procedural irregularity, upholding the impugned decision and reiterating the legitimacy of statutory remedies available under the 1971 Act.
The appellant, Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, contested the eviction order dated 4th December, 2024 issued by the Estate Officer under the 1971 Act, which directed the company to vacate the leasehold premises within 15 days and mandated the Port authorities to submit a damage calculation statement. The eviction order was upheld by the learned Single Judge on 21st January, 2025, who noted that the appellant had an alternative statutory remedy and declined to intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The appeal, MAT 123 of 2025 with connected application CAN 1 of 2025, arose from a writ petition (WPA 2957 of 2024), which was previously dismissed. The appellant had argued that the original lease granted in 2013 was for a period of 30 years, not 10 years as claimed by the Port, asserting that the Estate Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide the tenure of the lease.
Senior Advocate Mr. Sardar Amjad Ali, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the lease offer dated 20th November, 2013 clearly indicated a 30-year term and did not require further governmental consent as per Sections 34 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. He referred to internal communications and board resolutions from 2013 to assert the lease’s extended duration. The appellant alleged that the Estate Officer, acting as a tribunal under the 1971 Act, had overstepped his jurisdiction by adjudicating lease tenure matters still under judicial scrutiny in a separate writ petition (WPA 1475 of 2023).
Mr. Ali further challenged the impartiality of the Estate Officer, arguing that as a Port employee, the officer functioned as a "captive tribunal" without independence. He stressed that administrative fairness required the Port to avoid discriminatory conduct and to honour the contractual undertakings of a 30-year lease.
Responding on behalf of the Port authorities, Senior Advocate Mr. Abhrajit Mitra countered that the lease agreement, including its terms, clearly stipulated a 10-year period with no renewal clause. He relied on documents exchanged between 2013 and 2022, noting that the appellant had never contested the lease period contemporaneously and continued occupancy was without legal sanction post-expiry in November 2023.
Mr. Mitra also contended that the appellant had participated in proceedings before the Estate Officer without raising jurisdictional objections and had not challenged crucial orders passed by coordinate benches, particularly those dated 2nd January, 2024 and 29th November, 2024. He cited precedent from Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank (1990) 4 SCC 406 and Kanoi Tea Pvt. Ltd. v. Major Port Authority (2023) 250 AIC 329 to argue that the constitutional remedy under Article 226 should not be used to bypass efficacious statutory remedies.
The Division Bench observed that the dispute primarily turned on the nature and duration of the lease. It noted that the offer letter dated 20th November, 2013 was clear that the lease was for ten years and that this term was accepted without protest by the appellant. "The lease granted by the Port on 20th November 2013 in favour of the appellant states in unequivocal terms that it is a contract of lease... for a period of 10 years only without option for renewal."
The Court also took into account that "the appellant continued to enjoy the grant of lease of payments" and only forwarded the balance rent for an additional 20 years in July 2022. In response, the Port had declined to accept the payment for an unagreed period. This rejection was not contemporaneously contested by the appellant.
On the question of jurisdiction, the Court found no merit in the argument that the Estate Officer acted beyond his authority. "The appellant had participated in the proceedings before the said officer... there is absolutely no such allegation of bias made against the Estate Officer." The Bench reaffirmed the finding of the coordinate bench which had noted that the lease was for 10 years and had expired.
Regarding the invocation of Article 226, the Bench observed: "It cannot be argued that the scope and ambit of statutory appeal is limited or cannot be construed to be an adequate and efficacious remedy." It concluded that "Threshold mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity could not be established by the appellant."
The Court dismissed both the appeal and the connected injunction application. It recorded: "We find no infirmity in the judgment warranting interference in the present appeal." However, considering that the statutory appeal period granted earlier had lapsed, the Bench extended the timeline: "Since the time given by the said order dated 21st January, 2025 has already expired, we extend the time to prefer the appeal for a period of twelve days from date."
No order as to costs was passed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Sardar Amjad Ali, Senior Advocate; Mr. Puranjan Pal
For Respondents: Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Senior Advocate; Mr. Samrat Sen, Senior Advocate; Mr. Subhankar Nag; Mr. Swarajit Dey; Ms. Debarati Das; Mr. Saptarshi Kar
Case Title: Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited Versus The Board of Trustees for the Syma Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata & Ors.
Case Number: MAT 123 of 2025 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2025
Bench: Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra
[Read/Download order]
