Construction Project in Ebony: BPML Can Not Terminate Lease Of Land Allocated to Futura

The company plans to build a ten-story building. For the judge, it was a "serious and bona fide defense."

Under an agreement dated 13 October 2003, BPML has leased to the company Futura three plots of land contiguous with a total area of 48,583 square meters (a stretch of twelve acres). Futura had submitted a Business ICT Project and other related operations, including the construction of a ten-story building. According to the agreement between the two parties, it was agreed that construction would be curled in a 24-month period following the date of the agreement. The plans submitted had indicated that the complex would comprise eight rounds.

In the motion filed BPML Supreme Court, she said, as a complainant in the case, the Futura has not complied with the terms of the agreement, since only one of the eight towers had was built, but it was not yet operational, and that the defendant had not yet developed 75% of the land area.

In such circumstances, the BPML has used the Company a notice requiring him to formally begin the construction of the rest of the building within 48 hours of notice. Otherwise, the complainant was 1) cancel the lease of right without having to pay any compensation under the terms of the agreement, 2) take possession of six acres on which no development has been made and 3 ) write a new lease for the remaining six acres.

The Company did not comply with the requirement of notice. A second has been served, and this time, the defendant responded to the complainant asking him not to cancel the lease.

The BPML has filed a motion requesting a court order Habere Facias Possessionem be issued against the company to force a "quit, leave and vacate" the six acres on which no development has been done.

In its defense, the Futura has highlighted the time taken for the authorities concerned shall permit needed to begin construction. It also indicates that February 29, 2012, construction of the first tower was almost completed and the work for the second and third rounds had started.

The judge, after reviewing the record of the case, refused to issue the order requested by the complainant, especially since it was agreed between the two parties in case of dispute, they would rely on a arbitrator.