SYNOPSIS

1. That, the petitioner is a Pvt. Ltd. company registered under the companies
act, 1956 and is registered under the name and style of Eminent Infra
Structure Pvt. Ltd. incorporated on 17.06.2002. One of the director namely
Harbaksh Singh Batra has been duly authorized to carry on all the activities
on behalf of the company for any purpose whatsoever. That, the Aluxor inn
(Erstwhile Queen’s Club) club was given to the petitioner on concession
agreement by virtue of agreement dated 10.02.2009. Thereafter the same
has been given to petitioner on built, operate and transfer therein the
petitioner had invested a huge amount to the tune of Crores for
development of infrastructure and is since then managing all the affairs.

2. Petitioner challenges the termination of their lease agreement for the

Aluxor inn erstwhile Queens Club premises by the Chhattisgarh Housing
Board (CGHB) in a impugned dated 5/3/2024. They argue maintainability
issues, citing procedural irregularities, untimeliness of allegations, lack of
proper service, and an ongoing proceeding regarding concession fees.
Petitioner emphasizes that the decision-making authority lies with the
Commissioner, not the Executive Engineer, as per the Lease Agreement's
Clause 11, and highlights discrepancies in the termination notice's content,
suggesting external influence rather than genuine concerns over
contractual breaches.

3. Moreover, Petitioner provided detailed responses to the allegations raised

in the termination notice. They assert that the name change from "Queens
Club of India" to "The Aluxor Inn" was undertaken in good faith and with
implicit approval from CGHB, supported by formal applications and
correspondence. Peitioner contests the failure to pay concession fees,
noting efforts made to address concerns raised during a December hearing
 and highlighting legal principles such as double jeopardy. Additionally,
Eminent clarifies an incident referenced in the termination notice, arguing
that it occurred outside the club premises and challenging any association
with unlawful operations.\

4. Furthermore, Petitioner disputes CGHB's claim of property transfer

violation, arguing that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) pertained
to potential future share transfer within Eminent and did not constitute a
transfer of CGHB's property. Petitioner cite continued communication and
conduct post-MoU cancellation as evidence of waiver and legitimate
expectation, requesting rescission of the lease cancellation notice.
Petitioner also raises concerns regarding road construction on their land
without proper compensation, asserting that the termination solely on
non-payment of concession fees neglects this critical issue, Petitioner was
in direct communication with the respondents and respondents were
seeking their consent for the construction of road on their personal land
adjoining the club. Most of the issues were raised by the housing board in
2020 and subsequently responses were filed by the Peitioner during the
same tima and subsequently Respondentds dropped the proceedings and
started demanding advance rent from the petitioner and also respondent
started demanding the consent of Petitioner for construction of road on the
private property of petitioner and their conduct is governed under the
principles of estoppel and doctrine of waiver. . They seek a fair resolution
through the quashing of the termination letter date 5/3/204 and adherence
to Clause 11 of the Lease Agreement