J.K. Mathur, J. - (1.) This writ petition seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus to require the respondents to execute a deed of lease, in respect of the premises occupied by the Girish Park Branch of Bank of Baroda at 219, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, and also to pay the arrears of rent due from them.
(2.) The essential facts necessary for this determination are as follows : The petition is claimed to be member of a Joint Hindu Family with Dinesh Kumar Saksaria as the Karta. The aforesaid premises were let out by the family to the respondent Bank for a period of 16 years from 1-1-1967. This lease expired on 31-12-1982. The respondent Bank however did not renew the lease. It is alleged that they also did not pay the rent. According to the petitioner, the bank wrote a letter on 5-6-1992 agreeing to renew the lease on terms indicated in the letter and also agreed to pay arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 4/- per square feet per month with a future rent at Rs. 6/- per square feet per month. The agreement was to be for a period of 15 years with 15% increase in the rent every five years alternate. The petitioner was also to provide additional accommodation. There was further correspondence between the parties. The petitioner sent the bills with his letter on 1-11-1983 for Rs. 8,39,268/- and Rs. 1,65,645/- being rent from 1-1-1983 to 30-6-1992 and 1-7-1993 to 30-9-93 respectively. Another bill for subsequent period upto 31-12-1993, for an amount of Rs. 33,129/- was also sent. The Bank has not been made any payment nor has renewed the lease. It was, therefore urged that the Bank is bound to make the payment and renew the lease in agreed terms in accordance with the doctrine of promissory estoppel and that the act of the respondents was violative of Articles 14,19 (i) (g) and Art. 300A of the Constitution.
(3.) The respondent Bank contested the petition and filed an affidavit-in-opposition. They challenged the maintainability of the writ petition. It was also alleged inter alia that the respondents had been depositing the rent with the Rent Controller since January, 1983. The respondent Bank needed further accommodation. The lease could be renewed only by the Board of Directors of the Bank or the members of the Executive Committee at Bombay. The Branch Manager had no powers to enter into such agreements. He merely communicated the view of the higher authorities without making any commitment. This was known to the petitioners. The provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act are applicable and any proposals or suggestions about revision of rent was without commitment and without prejudice to the rights of the Bank. In any case this agreement could not be enforced without fulfilling the commitment to provide additional accommodation.;