Skip to main content

Generally transferee of a premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous owner/ occupier without agreement

In Madhuben Rameshchandra Shah vs Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn., the Petitioner had applied for allotment of shed pursuant to the advertisement of Respondent No.1. Petitioner submitted an application and was allotted Shed vide allotment letter. The Petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- towards allotment of the shed, as an initial payment. The Petitioner was informed that he would be able to get connection from the Gujarat Electricity Board in due course. After the transfer of possession of the allotted shed ,vide letter dated 14.10.1999, the Petitioner came to know, vide letter dated 30.06.2000, from Respondent No.-3 that the previous allottee of the shed had to pay Rs.1,26,479/- to the Gujarat Electricity Board for the shed purchased by him. The Petitioner, vide letter dated 17.09.2001 intimated Respondent No.-2 that dues of previous allottee were also pending towards the municipal tax of Surat Municipal Corporation. The Petitioner requested Respondent No.2 to clear outstanding dues of the previous allottee and to issue clear title of the Shed. Due to failure of Respondent No.1 to pay the requisite dues of the previous allottee, the Petitioner suffered financial loss due to non-commencement of his industry/business, which led to his failure to pay dues on time. GIDC passed eviction order on 8.02 .2007 under section-4 (i) of GPP Act. Aggrieved by the above, the Petitioner preferred a Complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service.

The District forum allowed the Complaint on grounds of deficiency in service by Respondent No. 1 and 2 for not returning the amount of Rs.1,76,000/- paid for the shed allotted by the Opposite Parties. Order of the District Forum was set aside by the State Commission on the ground that the District Forum had not considered the agreement for the sale. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant before NCDRC.

The NCDRC after perusing the allotment letter and the agreement and found that there is no express provision which mentioned that the purchaser of the premises had to pay electricity dues of the previous allottee. The Respondents also have not placed on record any evidence authorizing them to demand arrears of the previous allottee. In the absence of there being any specific statutory provision or clause in the Sale Agreement, the allottee cannot be compelled to clear the dues of the previous allottee. Dues relating to electricity charges cannot be enforced against the next allottee i.e. Petitioner.

The NCDRC while setting aside the order of the Stae Commission and confirming the District Forum order, referred to judgment of the Supreme Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electricity Board vs. M/s Hamuman Rice Mills Dhanauri & Ors. where it was held that “electricity arrears do not constitute a charge over the property. Therefore in general law, a transferee of a premises cannot be made liable for the dues of the previous owner/ occupier. Where the statutory rules or terms and conditions of supply which are statutory in character, authorize the supplier of electricity, to demand from the purchaser of a property claiming re-connection or fresh connection of electricity, the arrears due by the previous owner/occupier in regard to supply of electricity to such premises, the supplier can recover the arrears from a purchaser.” Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. Gujarat Inns. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.  held “We are clearly of the opinion that in case of a fresh connection though the premises are the same, the auction purchasers cannot be held liable to clear the arrears incurred by the previous owners in respect of power supply to the premises in the absence of there being a specific statutory provision in that regard.”


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more