- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Regency Amusements Private Ltd . v. State Of J&K And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Regency Amusements (P) Ltd., was involved in a lease dispute concerning land allotted for setting up an amusement park at Jammu. The original Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 10.03.1995 was issued by the Vice Chairman of Jammu Development Authority (JDA) to M/s. International Amusement Limited, New Delhi, for establishing the amusement park in collaboration with its local associate, Regency Amusements (P) Ltd. The period of lease was 20 years, extendable only with mutual consent. Regency Amusements ran the amusement park but failed to pay outstanding dues, leading JDA to issue a show cause notice in 2007. Regency Amusements filed OWP No. 1108/2007 challenging the show cause notice, claiming the LOI was issued to them, not to International Amusement Ltd. The Writ Court directed Regency Amusements to produce consent from International Amusement Ltd. and clear dues for execution of lease deed and extension. Regency Amusements made a representation but JDA rejected it due to failure to produce consent, clear dues, and the LOI being issued to International Amusement Ltd. Regency Amusements filed OWP No. 1840/2016 challenging this rejection. The Writ Court dismissed the petition holding that the court cannot compel extension without authority's consent. This appeal challenges that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court can compel extension of lease period when the authority (JDA) does not consent to such extension.
- Whether the Letter of Intent annexed by the appellant, purportedly issued to Regency Amusements (P) Ltd., is genuine or forged.
- Whether the appellant has any right to possession or lease extension in absence of consent from the original LOI holder, M/s. International Amusement Limited.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant contended that the Letter of Intent was issued to Regency Amusements (P) Ltd., not to M/s. International Amusement Limited.
- They challenged the show cause notice and sought extension of the lease period despite outstanding dues.
- The appellant claimed possession and rights based on the LOI and sought execution of lease deed and extension.
Respondent's Arguments
- The JDA argued that the original LOI was issued to M/s. International Amusement Limited, not Regency Amusements (P) Ltd.
- They alleged that the copy of the LOI annexed by the appellant was forged with alterations such as missing words and inconsistent fonts.
- The respondent maintained that International Amusement Ltd. had withdrawn acceptance and disassociated from Regency Amusements (P) Ltd.
- JDA rejected the appellant’s representation due to failure to produce consent from International Amusement Ltd. and non-payment of outstanding dues.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the original Letter of Intent and found it was issued to M/s. International Amusement Limited, with Regency Amusements as a local associate. The copies annexed by the appellant appeared forged, with omissions and inconsistent insertions suggesting manipulation to create an impression that the LOI was addressed to Regency Amusements. The appellant’s own representation admitted the LOI was issued to International Amusement Ltd. The Court noted that the appellant had not produced the required consent from International Amusement Ltd. nor cleared outstanding dues, as directed in the earlier order dated 03.10.2016. Furthermore, International Amusement Ltd. had clearly disassociated itself from the appellant. Since the lease period was for 20 years and only extendable by mutual consent, and the respondent authority did not consent, the Court held it could not compel extension of the lease. The Court found no reason to deviate from the Single Judge’s decision and dismissed the appeal.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the Single Judge dated 21.08.2019 are upheld.
The direct consequence is that Regency Amusements (P) Ltd. cannot compel the Jammu Development Authority to extend the lease period without mutual consent. The appellant’s possession and claim are undermined by the forged documents and failure to produce consent or clear dues. No new precedent was established; the decision reaffirms that lease extension requires authority’s consent and courts cannot enforce extension unilaterally.
Tashi Rabstan, J.:— This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.08.2019 delivered by the learned Single Judge in OWP No. 1840/2016, whereby the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has held that once the authority is not consenting for extension of the period of lease, the Court cannot compel for the same.
2. We have gone through the appeal as well as the writ record, considered the rival contentions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the original record produced by learned counsel for JDA. We have also called file of OWP No. 1108/2007 from the record decided on 03.10.2016, which was earlier filed by the appellant herein.
3. Admittedly, the period of lease, as provided in the letter of intent was 20 years and the period of lease was extendable with mutual consent of the parties. Actually, the Letter of Intent for setting up of amusement park was issued in favour of M/s. International Amusement Limited on 10.03.1995 being the highest bidder by the Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority, whereby M/s. International Amusement Limited was requested to convey its acceptance and deposit the premium of Rs. 3.00 lacs. However, as per Letter of Intent, the amusement park was to be set up by M/s. International Amusement Limited, Charminar Bazar, New Delhi in collaboration with its local associate, i.e, M/s. Regency Amusement Ltd., appellant herein. Since the amusement park was being run by Regency Amusement Pvt. Ltd. and when it failed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 13,04,658/-, a show cause notice dated 17.12.2007 was issued to it as to why the agreement/contract be not cancelled and land be not retrieved back.
4. Against the said show cause notice, the appellant herein filed OWP No. 1108/2007 contending therein that after issuance of Letter of Intent, the respondent-JDA did not execute the lease deed in favour of appellant herein and issued the show cause notice. However, it was pleaded on behalf of learned counsel for respondent-JDA that as per Letter of Intent, the land-inquestion was leased out to M/s. International Amusement Ltd. and not to Regency Amusement Pvt. Ltd. and that the copy of Letter of Intent, annexed by the appellant herein with the writ petition showing the land was allotted to Regency Amusement, is forged one. It was further pleaded that M/s. International Amusement Ltd. had already withdrawn its acceptance.
5. The Writ Court while disposing of the writ petition vide judgment dated 03.10.2016 had directed that in case the Regency Amusement, appellant herein, produces the consent of its associate M/s. International Amusement Ltd. and furnishes an undertaking to clear all the outstanding dues and submits a representation to respondent-JDA for execution of the lease deed as also for extension of period, the aforesaid authority would take an appropriate decision by passing a speaking order. It was further directed that Regency Amusement shall not be dispossessed from the land-inquestion except in accordance with law.
6. Regency Amusement (P) Ltd., through its Managing Director accordingly made a detailed representation dated 14.10.2016 However, the respondent-JDA vide order dated 19.12.2016 rejected the representation mainly on three counts, i.e, M/s. Regency Amusement Pvt. Ltd. had failed to produce the consent letter from M/s. International Amusement Ltd., New Delhi; the firm has also failed to give an undertaking for an amount of Rs. 34,58,888/- upto 30.11.2016 and that the Letter of Intent was issued by the JDA in favour of M/s. International Amusement Ltd., New Delhi, which has not only disassociated M/s. Regency Amusement Pvt. Ltd., Jammu, but also disowned the said firm in absolute clear terms. While rejecting the representation, M/s. Regency Amusement Pvt. Ltd. was directed to hand over the possession of land-in-question and also to deposit the outstanding amount within ten days, failing which action as per law would be initiated.
7. Regency Amusements Private Limited, appellant herein, assailed the order dated 19.12.2016 by filing OWP No. 1840/2016. The Writ Court while dismissing the writ petition has held that once the authority is not consenting for extension of the period of lease, the Court cannot compel for the same. Hence, the instant appeal.
8. A perusal of the original record, produced by the learned counsel for JDA, clearly reveals that the Letter of Intent was issued by the Vice Chairman, JDA to M/s. International Amusement Limited and not to Regency Amusement (P) Ltd., relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder:
“Office of the Vice Chairman Jammu Development Authority, Vikas Bhawan Jammu
M/s. International Amusement Limited,
Charminar Bazar, Gate No. 4,
Pragati Maidan New Delhi.
No. VC/1164-69/PODated:10.3.95
Subject:- Letter of Intent for setting up an Amusement Park at Jammu.
Ref:- Your offer submitted vide your letter No. IAL/Jammu. 14.11.1993 dated 2.6.1993
Dear Sir,
We have been pleased to accept your offer for setting up an Amusement Park in Jammu in collaboration with your local associate M/s. Regency Amusement Ltd. …..”
9. This letter clearly reveals that the Letter of Intent was issued to M/s. International Amusement Limited for setting up an amusement park in Jammu in collaboration with its local associate M/s. Regency Amusement Ltd. But, when we go through the photocopies of Letter of Intent, annexed by the appellant herein with OWP No. 1840/2016 and OWP No. 1108/2007, surprisingly, it reveals that the same was issued to Regency Amusement (P) Ltd., i.e, appellant herein, for setting up an Amusement Park in Jammu in collaboration with its associate M/s. International Amusement Ltd. A close reading of the same reveals that the word “local”, which was appearing in the original Letter of Intent, is missing and in its place there is a blank space. Not only this, in the third line of photocopies of Letter of Intent, the word “international” seemed to have been inserted in place of “Regency”. Further, the word “international” is not within the alignment and also appears to be of different font. For ready reference, relevant portion of photocopies of Letter of Intent is reproduced hereunder:
“Office of the Vice Chairman Jammu Development Authority, Vikas Bhawan Jammu
REGENCY AMUSEMENTS (P) Ltd.,
50/2, Trikuta Nagar,
Jammu.
No. VC/1164-69/PODated:10.3.95
Subject:- Letter of Intent for setting up an Amusement Park at Jammu.
Ref:- Your offer submitted vide your letter No. IAL/Jammu. 14.11.1993 dated 2.6.1993
Dear Sir,
We have been pleased to accept your offer for setting up an Amusement Park in Jammu in Collaboration with your associate M/s. International Amusement Ltd. …..”
10. Thus, we are of the opinion that the photocopies of Letter of Intent, annexed by the appellant herein with OWP No. 1840/2016 and OWP No. 1108/2007, appear to have been forged so as to give an impression that the Letter of Intent was actually issued to M/s. Regency Amusement Ltd. and not to M/s. International Amusement Limited. Our this view further get strengthened when we go through the representation of Regency Amusements (P) Ltd., appellant herein, made to Vice Chairman of JDA, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder:
The Vice-Chairman,
Jammu Development Authority, Jammu.
Subject:- Representation in terms of order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K (Jammu Wing) in OWP No. 1108/2007 titled Regency Amusements (P) Ltd. v. State of J&K
The applicant (Manu Gupta-Managing Director Regency Amusements (P) Ltd.) respectfully submits as under:—
1. That vide letter of intent dated 10.03.1995 land measuring 28 kanals near Bahu Fort was allotted to M/s. International Amusement, New Delhi through their local collaborator M/s. Regency Amusements (P) Ltd. and the possession of the land was handed over to the applicant herein in anticipation of lease deed being executed.”
11. Thus, in the above-quoted portion of the representation, the appellant herein has itself admitted that the Letter of Intent was actually issued to M/s. International Amusement, New Delhi for setting up an amusement park in Jammu in collaboration with its local associate M/s. Regency Amusement Ltd., appellant herein. Indeed, neither before the Writ Court nor before this Court, the appellant has not come with clean hands and by forging the facts had succeeded in getting the status-quo order from the Writ Court on 29.12.2007 in OWP No. 1108/2007 with respect to the possession of property-in-question and, only because of the pendency of the matter in the Court, the appellant herein has been enjoying the possession till date without there being any lease deed. Further, in terms of judgment dated 03.10.2016 delivered in OWP No. 1108/2007, the appellant herein neither produced the consent letter from M/s. International Amusement Ltd., New Delhi nor file an undertaking for payment of outstanding dues. It has also come on record that M/s. International Amusement Ltd., New Delhi has not only disassociated M/s. Regency Amusement Pvt. Ltd., Jammu, appellant herein, but has also disowned the said firm in absolute clear terms. Further, the period of lease, as provided in the letter of intent was 20 years and the same is already over. The period of lease was extendable only with mutual consent of the parties. Once the respondents are not consenting for extension of the period of lease, the Court cannot compel for the same.
12. In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to take a view other than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, while upholding the judgment of learned Single Judge, we dismiss the appeal along with connected CM being without any merit.
13. Record produced be returned to the learned counsel for JDA against proper receipt.
14. I pronounce this judgment in terms of Rule 138(4) of the J&K High Court Rules, 1999.
Alert