Subscribe
Subscribe
- News
- Columns
- Interviews
- Law Firms
- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
- हिंदी
- ಕನ್ನಡ
An appeal has been filed by Associated Journals Limited (AJL) against the Delhi High Court’s decision upholding its eviction from the Herald House premises.
Reiterating the stance adopted before the High Court, AJL has contended that,
“… the determination of the lease deed is ex facie malicious, arbitrary, based on extraneous grounds, and has been effected for political considerations contrary to the express provisions of the lease deed itself.“
The October 2018 decision of the Land and Estate Officer, Central Government directing AJL to vacate Herald House by November was upheld by a Single Judge Bench on the Delhi High Court in December last year. In February this year, a Division Bench of the Court had upheld the Single Judge verdict.
Mandatory terms of 1967 Perpetual Lease Deed not followed
In AJL’s appeal before the Supreme Court, it has faulted the Delhi High Court for not appreciating the proper application of its Perpetual Lease Deed of 1967. In this regard, two clauses of the lease deed have been highlighted.
AJL points out that Clause 13 (VI) lays down that the lessor cannot terminate the lease unless the lessee is given an opportunity to cure the defect complained of. One of the grounds on which AJL’s eviction was upheld was that there was no press activity being carried out by it at the Herald House, despite it being the dominant purpose for granting the lease.
On the one hand, AJL has argued that this finding is factually incorrect. AJL’s plea states that there is voluminous evidence on record to should that AJL had been carrying out the publication of several newspapers in the last several decades. The petition goes on to state,
“Even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that the Petitioner had not carried out printing activity for a period of eight years between 2008 to 2016, nevertheless by the time order was passed on 30.10.2018 the Petitioner was carrying out the full-fledged running of three newspapers online as well as an in print…Hence, the allegation of the respondent that the dominant purpose (as per the respondent) of the lease has been violated, is false and it can not be a ground for re-entry when the same has already been rectified in full…“
However, even if this wasn’t the case, AJL contends that it was given no opportunity to cure such a defect, contrary to the terms of Clause 13 (VI).
The other lease deed clause highlighted is Clause III (13). AJL emphasises that this provision only contains a prohibition on the transfer of rights by AJL. This prohibition does not extend to changing the shareholding pattern of the company, submits AJL.
“Lease Deed did not contain any prohibition or a covenant that there cannot be any change of the shareholding pattern without the prior consent of the Lessor as was stipulated in other matters of the Lease Deed…
… the mere fresh allotment of the shares of AJL to Young Indian which is a section 25 company cannot at all be construed as a breach of Clause III (13) of the Lease… It is submitted that unless there is a specific clause prohibiting a change in the constitution of the Lessee, the lease cannot be determined.”
In this backdrop, AJL goes on to argue that the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil would not find application in the present case either. Inter alia, AJL has also argued that the Delhi High Court had erred in making findings prejudicial to AJL without there being any affidavits on those aspects. These findings were based only on oral arguments. Objecting to the same, AJL has contended,
“.. the Hon’ble High Court as a court of record could not have rendered findings that a transaction was purportedly clandestine and surreptitious transaction without there being any affidavit or averment by the official-Respondents in the Writ Petition.“
Eviction a malicious step to defame Nehruvian Legacy
Over and above these objections, it is AJL’s case that it is being singled out owing to politically fuelled ulterior motivations stemming from the opposing ideologies of the ruling regime.
“The publications of the Petitioner-Company espouse the ideology of the Congress Party, which is presently the largest Opposition Party in the country. The eviction proceedings have been initiated for the purposes of scuttling the voice of democratic dissent of the Congress Party. It is a clear affront to the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and a deliberate attempt to suppress and destroy the legacy of the first Prime Minister of the country i.e. Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, who was the guiding light for the publications of the Petitioner-Company
The present political dispensation in power at the Centre, has never hidden its pathological hatred for Nehruvian ideals. One of their favorite propaganda is to blame Pandit Nehru for almost everything that ails the nation. The eviction proceedings constitute a malicious step in the larger design of defaming and effacing the legacy of Pandit Nehru.“
To buttress this argument, AJL points towards eight other lessees in Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg who have also subleased a portion of their demised premises. Further, AJL highlights that these lessees still have outstanding dues left to pay, whereas AJL had cleared its dues of Rs 3.5 crore in 2011.
“It is only the Petitioner-Company herein who is singled out for such malicious and invidious discrimination,” states the petition.
On these grounds, AJL has prayed that the Delhi High Court judgment be set aside. In the interim, AJL has prayed that the eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 be stayed.
AJL is being represented by Senior Advocates AM Singhvi and Vivek K Tankha in their appeal before the Supreme Court. The appeal, drawn by Advocates Devadatt Kamat and Priyansha Indra Sharma, has been filed through Advocate Sunil Fernandes