IN THE COURT OF THE LD 2rd CIVIL JUDGE (SR DIV) AT HOOGHLY
TS NO 188 OF 2017
M/S XXXXXX POWERTRONICS
THE XXXXXXXXX SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ORS
AFFIDAVIT-IN-CHIEF ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NO 2 SANI SALES, PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR AMAR NATH
I, Amar Nath, S/O late xxxxxxxxx, Director of Defendant no-2 M/S Somani sales Pvt Ltd, aged 46, by faith Sanatan Hindu, by profession trader, R/O 9 xxxxxxxxx Mukherjee Road Howrah-1, doing business from Howrah Maidan Industrial and Commercial Complex, 24 xxxxxxxx Road, do hereby solemnly affirm and do say, as I am competent to say and I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. I have submitted the written Statement and now I am telling truthfully for the purpose of evidence as below:
1. That the plaintiff is a sub- lease holder under the Defendant no-2. (Doc 11 and 12)
2. That the defendant no 2 is a registered small-scale industry and the owner of the property rented to the plaintiff through an agreement. (Original agreement deposited by the Plaintiff)
3. That the Defendant no I is a corporation promoted by the Govt of West Bengal for the development of small scale industries through the outright sale of their properties within the industrial hub ( Doc no 5). The Defendant no 2 lease purchased for 500 years the Scheduled Property by paying premium from the Defendant no 1. (Doc no 2 and 3)
4. Defendant no 1 handed over the scheduled property to the Defendant no 2. (Doc no 6 and 7)
5. Defendant no 1 supposed to maintain the industrial complex/hub by supplying basic amenities such as water, electricity, sweeping and other maintenance, but they stopped it after selling of the disputed properties. Later they asked for clearing dues (Doc 13). Def no-2 agreed to clear dues on condition that they must unlocked the Stalls (doc 14)
6. That the relationship between the Defendant no1 and 2 are governed by two agreements dated 20 March 1989 and 12 July 1985 (Doc 2 and 3). Again the Rental (sub-lease) relationship between Plaintiff and the Defendant no 2 is governed by Sub lease agreement dated 9th August 2012. As per the above two agreements with Defendant no 1, the defendant no 2 is competent to sublease the disputed property to the Plaintiff. The plaintiff and the Defendant no 2 both are registered Small Scale Industries and they jointly Run Orbit Electronics from the same Industrial Hub.
7. That the defendant no 1 illegally disposed the Defendant no 2 by putting lock and Key to the Disputed Properties (stalls) , which actually hampered the business of the Plaintiff, the sub-lease holder. (Doc-9)
8. That the Defendant no 1 then by a letter dated 05/10/2016 asked the defendant no 2 to remain present at the disputed propertied and the Defendant no 1 would open the stalls and they would allow to make an inventory of stocks inside the stalls. But they never came and opened the stalls.( Doc-10)
9. That below I, the defendant no 2 propose to produce some Documents in support of my claim, which may be marked as exhibits if the Ld Court permits :
1. Certificate of Incorporation- this is the certificate of incorporation of the Defendant no 2 (original) – 1976-77.
2. Agreement Dated 1985 – This is the certified Copy of Agreement between Defendant no 1 and 2 in connection with Stall no 1/2 of the Scheduled Property. (1/2 A and ½ B within 1/2 )
3. Agreement Dated 1989 – This is the certified Copy of Agreement between Defendant no 1 and 2 in connection with Stall no 1/10 of the Scheduled Property.
4. Income tax return of Plaintiff: It return of Vijay Bahity of the year 2019-20.
5. Prospectus for outright of disputed property (three documents collectively) – 04/05/1988- These xerox documents show the intention of Defendant no 1 to sell / outright purchase of the property for buyers.
6. Letter of Possession- two documents: These two documents dated 10/2/87 and 4/5/88 show the possession of stall no ½ and 1/10 of the scheduled property.
7. Handing over letters- two documents: These two documents dated 2/5/89 and 18/7/85 show the possession of stall no 1/10 and ½ respectively of the scheduled property.
8. Maintenance bill: These two Bills show that after depositing maintenance to the Howrah Industrial and Commercial Complex association, the plaintiff handed over to the Defendant no 2.
9. Tenancy terminating notice dated 23/02/2016: This order (Xerox) was affixed on the outside wall of the disputed property/stalls and the defendant no 1 put their locks on the shutter doors of the Stalls (1/10 and ½ A) without the knowledge of the Plaintiff or defendant no 2, in their absence.
10. Notice for making inventory dated 05/10/2016: This letter shows that after locking the Stalls, the Defendant no 1 wanted to make inventory of the goods locked inside the Stalls. But they never came to open the disputed properties (Stall)
11. Non-Refundable Deposit Bill dated 9/08/2012: Bill issued to the Plaintiff.
12. Rent cum service charge Bill dated 3/04/2018 and 2 April 2019: Rent receipt issued to the Plaintiff
13. Latter from WB Small Industries to clear dues to def no 2 – dated 15/2/2017: Despite the eviction notice and later locking the Stalls , the Def no-1 ask for clearing the dues @ Rs 68,223.97
14. Letter to WB Small Industries dated 22/02/2017: by this latter Def no 2 requested to accept the dues and unlocking the Disputed Properties stalls) which the Def no-1 never responded till date.
After submitting the above documents, now I also say the followings:
10. It is not a fact that the plaintiff and I have a collusive relationship, rather we have co-operative business relationship apart from the fact that Plaintiff is my Su-lease holder, which is permitted to me by Defendant no 1 by Agreements.
11. It is not a fact I want to deprive the dues claimed by the Defendant no 1, rather I always agree to pay them despite it was their illegal claim as they totally stopped to maintain the Industrial hub, and due to which we suffered loss and sub- leased the property to the plaintiff.
12. It is not a fact that I do not want to do business.
13. It is a fact that Defendant no 2 received the property from Defendant no 1 under Out Right Purchase cum Ownership Scheme for 500 years by paying high premium.
14. It is a fact that the defendant no 1 partially dispossessed the Defendant no 2, on 23.02.2016 without following due process of law and the plaintiff filed the suit within the stipulated time.
15. It is a fact that the defendant no 1 by their letter dated 5/2/1988 and 12/11/1992 withheld all essential services from the Industrial hub and due to this defendant no 2 faced a huge loss and subleased the scheduled property to the Plaintiff. Now the plaintiff running their business from stall no ½ B (big room 1 within stall no 1/2).
All the statements and documents produced before your honour contain truth and only truth and I have concealed nothing and am always ready for getting call from this Court to answer anything in connection with the case. Accept this witness by your grace, your honour.
Deponent identified by me