Prior permission remains mandatory; unauthorized transfer and change of use justify lease determination.

The petitioner held a registered 999-year lease dated 13 February 1974 from the Government of West Bengal concerning Plot No. DC-J/15, Sector-I, Salt Lake, Kolkata, intended for construction of a house to be used as a textile and linen shop.

Clauses 2(7), 2(8), and 2(10) prohibited subletting, assignment, or transfer without the Government’s prior written permission and prohibited use of the premises for any purpose other than the sanctioned purpose.

The petitioner and two directors of Bhikharam Chandmal Sweet and Snacks Pvt. Ltd. approached the Government seeking permission to operate a sweet-meat and namkin shop on the premises.

A show-cause notice dated 8 August 2016 alleged violation of Clauses 2(8) and 2(10), including unauthorised transfer/use of the premises.

The petitioner replied on 9 September 2016, but the respondent authority subsequently determined the lease by order dated 15 March 2018.

Whether the petitioner violated Clauses 2(8) and 2(10) of the lease by transferring or assigning the leasehold premises and using them for purposes other than a textile and linen shop without prior written Government permission?

Whether the Government notifications dated 6 May 2005 and 8 December 2011 operated as a general authorisation curing the alleged violations or otherwise invalidated the determination of the lease?

Whether the High Court, exercising judicial review, should interfere with the authority’s factual findings regarding breach of the lease conditions?

The Court applied the contractual restrictions contained in Clauses 2(7), 2(8), and 2(10) of the registered lease: transfer, assignment, subletting, or change of use required the Government’s prior written permission, and the lessor was entitled to re-enter upon breach.

The notifications dated 6 May 2005 permitted transfer of Salt Lake commercial/industrial leasehold plots and change of project or use only upon prior Government permission and payment of the prescribed fees; they did not constitute an unconditional or automatic waiver of the lease restrictions.

In judicial review, the Court would not interfere with a competent authority’s factual findings in the absence of contrary material or demonstrated illegality.

The Court inferred from the joint approach made by the petitioner and the company’s two directors for permission to operate a sweet-meat and namkin shop that the premises had been transferred, assigned, or otherwise made available to the company without the lease-required prior permission.

The petitioner failed to explain the legal basis on which the company’s directors had joined her in seeking permission, despite the lease’s prohibition on transfer or subletting.

Further, the actual use of the G+3 building as a restaurant, retail outlet, staff rest room, and store room materially differed from the sanctioned textile and linen shop use, and the petitioner produced no evidence of permission or payment of prescribed fees for such change of use.

The Court held that the 2005 and 2011 notifications did not retrospectively regularise the breaches because they themselves required prior permission.

The petitioner’s failure to specifically answer the alleged violations in her reply to the show-cause notice further supported the authority’s decision.

The report indicating that the department was not opposed to the petitioner’s transfer proposal, and that post facto permission had been granted in another case, did not displace the factual finding of breach in the present case.

The order dated 15 March 2018 determining the lease was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.

The interim order was vacated, with no order as to costs.