Mumbai: It took 42 years for the city based firm involved in construction of buildings in GT hospital complex, to get an order directing state government to execute lease agreement as per the contract signed in 1978. As the state government failed, the firm had filed a suit in before the court in 1982. The legal battle finally ended with court allowing his petition.

As stated in the order passed by City Civil court, the state government had executed lease agreement dated October 02 1975 in favour of Puri Construction Ltd in respect of land situated in the compound of GT hospital. The agreement was for the purpose of demolishing certain existing building and construction of four new buildings thereon, being a residential building comprising of a Low Rise Residential building and a High Rise Residential building, as also Hospital-cum Nursing building and a shopping centre which is known as Ashoka Shopping Centre. All the buildings were to be constructed on three plots of land.

As against this, the state government, agreed to give the lease of a portion of the project land admeasuring approximately 4993.92 sq.mtrs to the developer or its nominee for a period of 98 years and also granted the right to construct Ashoka Shopping centre with permission to sell the shops constructed therein.

However, as time passed Puri Construction faced financial issues and hence requested state to allow Kahini Developers Private Limited, to execute the agreement on behalf of Puri Construction. The state accepted it and a corresponding resolution was also passed in January 1978. However, in 1982, some disputes arose between the two builders, hence the suit was filed on October 1, 1982.

It is claimed that in October 1985, there was a settlement and a consent terms were signed between them. Accordingly, a tripartite agreement came to be executed between the Kalini Developers and Puri Construction on October 9, 1985 and same was subsequently signed by the state government on December 13, 1985, by which the government recognized Kalini Developers the builder to complete the execution of the project.

Kalini Developers however claimed that it completed the construction and handed over the building to the state. It also finished the construction of Ashoka Shopping Centre and also sold the units. But against this, the developer claimed that the state failed to handover agreed plot to them on lease basis. Hence Kalini had pleaded the court for execution of lease agreement.

The State in its response had claimed that, the plaintiff ( Kalini Developers) all the time acted as a agent of the defendant no.2 (Puri Construction) . The plaintiff was never been recognized or accepted by the defendant 1 (state) independently. The state further claimed that The defendant no.1 was having right to refuse to grant such consent. It is contended that, till the filing of suit, the plaintiff has not requested for assignment of the obligation and benefit of the contract.

During the hearing all the agreements were placed before the court, including the tripartite agreement and the fact that all the buildings have been constructed and handed over to the state government by Kalini Developers.

Thus the court said, "It is not the case of defendant (state government) that the plaintiff has committed breach of any terms and conditions of agreement executed between plaintiff and defendant no.1 (state government) . No case to that effect is made out on behalf of defendant no.1. On the contrary, it is established from the evidence that the plaintiff has performed all obligations on their part in terms of tripartite agreement and supplemental agreement."

"The documentary evidence including the possession receipt on record is sufficient proof of compliance of obligation on the part of plaintiff. In the result, it is hereby held that the plaintiff has establish execution of concluded contract, and their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract," the court said directing state to execute the lease agreement in favour of Kalini Developers subject to payment of any unpaid amount by the plaintiff.