DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) Petitioners have challenged demand letters issued by the first respondent demanding payment of transfer fee for recording the first petitioner as a tenant in respect of an immovable property under the first respondent.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, Khetawat Chemical and Fertilizer Limited was the tenant under the first respondent in respect of the immovable property concerned. Khetawat Chemical and Fertilizer Limited mortgaged the leasehold interest in favour of UCO Bank as security for the credit facilities enjoyed by it. UCO Bank initiated proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of the credit facilities against Khetawat Chemical and Fertilizer Limited. Such proceeding was decreed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal - I, UCO Bank put the decree into execution. In the recovery proceedings, advertisements were published in the newspapers for sale of the leasehold interest of Khetawat Chemical and Fertilizer Limited. The petitioners participated in such sale. Ultimately, the petitioner was put into possession of the immovable property concerned by the Receiver appointed in the Recovery Proceeding on May 3, 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the first respondent to record transfer of the leasehold interest in favour of the petitioner on May 20, 2005. On June 23, 2005 the first respondent expressed its willingness to record such transfer subject to payments of arrears of rent and service charges due and payable by Khetawat Chemical and Fertilizer Limited. The petitioners approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal praying for adjustment of the outstanding claim from the sale proceeds. The petitioner did not succeed in such endeavour. Thereafter, the petitioners expressed their willingness to pay the arrears of rent for recording the transfer. The first respondent did not act thereon.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the secretary of the first respondent issued a writing dated August 16, 2011 purporting to be modified/amended procedure of allotment/assignment and other norms relating to allotment. He has submitted that, at best, such norms which came into effect from August16, 2011 can be prospective and that, such norms cannot govern the relationship between the petitioners and the first respondent. Right, title and interest of the first petitioner in respect of the immovable property was created prior to the norms dated August 16, 2011 coming into effect. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the pleadings filed by the first respondent in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He has submitted that, the first respondent accepted that, the first petitioners stepped into the shoes of Khetawat Chemical and Fertilizer Limited in respect of the immovable property concerned. The first respondent justified its demand of arrears from the first petitioner on such ground.;