Wilson College gymkhana: State claims actual possession of property taken, HC seeks govt, UCNITA’s affidavits on lease cancellation

The court also asked UCNITA to file an affidavit related to policy decision on the matter and deemed renewal of lease. UCNITA, which manages the college situated in south Mumbai near Girgaon Chowpatty, sought continuation of the lease to re-acquire the over 100-year-old gymkhana.

Through a decision in December last year, the Mumbai City district collector had ordered taking over the gymkhana land by citing mismanagement and violation of the lease rules, which was upheld by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal the same month.

UCNITA had also formed an internal committee to conduct an inquiry into “lapses” by the administration, which eventually led to this situation. UCNITA has also challenged the government’s decision to hand over nearly 1 lakh square feet of land to Jain International Organisation (JIO) on a 30-year lease for running a Jain gymkhana.

The plea claimed that the tribunal did not give hearing to UCNITA before passing of the impugned order.

The bench on April 8 had noted that the show cause notice (SCN) issued by the authorities had provided detailed reasons for not continuing the lease and had mentioned the lease had expired.

The Alumni Association has also filed an intervention application alleging that Collector’s order was ‘arbitrary’ and passed ‘without following due process of law.’

On Wednesday, senior advocate Prasad Dhakephalkar for UCNITA argued that the government had agreed for the renewal of the lease and had accepted the rent.

While it had allowed renewal for other gymkhanas in south Mumbai, it cannot ‘pick and choose’ the Wilson College gymkhana to refuse renewal and act like an ‘ordinary landlord.’

When Justice Amit Borkar asked as to whether on the date of initiation of proceedings by authority, UCNITA was in authorised possession of the land, Dhakephalkar submitted that it was deemed to be in possession and had paid the rent.

Justice Borkar also sought from the petitioner a past SC judgment holding that acceptance of rent will amount to renewal of lease.

Dhakephalkar responded that if the rent was paid surreptitiously, it would not amount to renewal, however, the same was not the case in present matter as the Collector had accepted the rent and the government at the highest level had taken such a decision.

The court allowed petitioner to submit within a week an affidavit indicating facts which constitute petitioner’s status as ‘tenant holding over’ as per section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 based on the June, 2017 policy decision of the Government. It also asked the UCNITA to put forth facts which according to it constitute renewal of lease.

Advocate General Birendra Saraf also sought a time to file reply in a week thereafter and submitted that actual possession of the property is taken. However, the petitioner disputed the same.

“Parties, therefore, are permitted to state necessary facts in their affidavit,” the bench said and posted further hearing to April 24.