2020 (6) TMI 477 - HC - GST

Delivery of vacant possession of the premises - Property sealed u/s 67(4) - Default in payment of GST - direction to respondents to handover possession of schedule premises to the petitioner forthwith by issuing a writ of mandamus - HELD THAT - Undisputed fact is petitioner has leased her property in favour of Alfara. It is petitioner s claim that Alfara has defaulted in paying monthly rent. In view of the admitted position that Alfara is in possession of the premises in question as a tenant on the strength of lease deed dated 1st July 2017 the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus and handover the premises in question to the petitioner cannot be granted in writ proceedings as parties shall be governed by terms of lease. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Unsealing of premises and delivery of vacant possession sought by the landlord from the tenant.
2. Challenge against the sealing of property under the GST Act.
3. Locus standi of the landlord to challenge the proceedings initiated against the tenant.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, the landlord, sought the unsealing of the premises leased to a tenant who defaulted in paying rents. The property was sealed under the GST Act. The petitioner requested the court to issue a writ of mandamus for unsealing and handing over possession. The alternative prayer was to direct the respondents to deliver possession in a time-bound manner. The landlord argued facing hardship due to non-payment of rents and the sealing of the property by the state.

2. The State, represented by the learned HCGP, opposed the petition, stating the property was sealed due to the tenant's tax default under the GST Act. The Assistant Commissioner called upon the tenant to respond, but no action was taken. The State contended that the unsealing could be done following the law, and the landlord had no standing to challenge the GST proceedings against the tenant.

3. The court considered the contentions of both parties and reviewed the records. The landlord sought vacant possession of the premises leased to the tenant, who was facing GST proceedings. The court noted that the tenant was in possession based on the lease agreement. As the tenant's default in rent payment was acknowledged, the court found the prayer for possession in the writ proceedings inappropriate, as the lease terms governed the relationship between the parties.

4. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, deeming it misconceived. However, it clarified that the dismissal did not prevent the landlord from seeking possession through the appropriate legal channels. The court emphasized that parties should abide by the terms of the lease agreement. No costs were awarded in the judgment.