CASE TITLE:
Badrilal Vs Municipal Corporation Of Indore
DATE OF ORDER:
6 December, 1972
JUDGES:
Justice Alagiriswami, A.
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Badrilal
Respondent: Municipal Corporation of Indore
SUBJECT
The decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Second Appeal No. 475 of 1962 on the court's records is being appealed here with special leave. In 1919, the appellant entered into a ten-year lease for a parcel of land that belonged to the Municipal Corporation. This lease was periodically renewed, with the most recent extension lasting 10 years in 1939. The lease was up on September 30, 1949. The appellant was given notice by the respondent, Municipal Corporation of Indore, on April 24, 1949, that he had until September 30, 1949, to remove the property.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Transfer of Property Act 1882
- Section 53A - Part performance. - Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract.
- Section 116 - Effect of holding over.—If a lessee or under-lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee, or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in section 106.
BRIEF FACTS
- The respondent-property corporation’s parcel was leased by the appellant. The appellant requested that a lease be granted to him for 99 years or at least for 10 years after the respondent gave him notice that he had to leave the property on the date when the lease expired. The respondent made a decision that the appellant would receive the land provided he paid a higher rent and placed a specific sum as upset price, and that otherwise, possession of the land should be reclaimed.
- Despite not meeting the requirements, the appellant made a counter offer. After failing in his appeal to the Minister seven years after the respondent’s resolution was made, he offered to pay a portion of the amount specified by the resolution in whole and the remaining amount in instalments. The Municipal Commissioner approved this. The respondent filed an eviction lawsuit after the appellant failed to make any payments. The appellant asked that a 99-year permanent lease be granted to him while the lawsuit was pending and offered to pay the entire upset price, any unpaid rent, and the lawsuit’s costs.
- He also submitted a check for a portion of the sum (the rent had been computed using the old rate), but after the Commissioner reminded him, he paid the remaining amount a few days later. However, the respondent adopted a new resolution denying the appellant's request for a lease.
- The appellant was a tenant holding over, according to the trial court and the first appellate court, which dismissed the case. The High Court dismissed the respondent-lawsuit Corporation’s in its second appeal.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the judgment of the High Court that the appellant was liable to be evicted was accurate or not?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
- The appellant pleaded that he was the land’s permanent lessee, but that assertion was manifestly false and was not made with any seriousness before the court.
- There was no compromise of the lawsuit, according to the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, he argued that the appellant’s payment of Rs. 5697.93 on September 22, 1959, in response to the Commissioner’s letter, established a finished contract and precluded further litigation. Additionally, he claimed that because the appellant was a tenant holding over, he would be entitled to the protections of Sections 106 and 116 of the Transfer of the Property Act and that the appellant would benefit from the provisions of Section 53A of that law.
JUDGMENT
- The claim that a contract had been reached between the appellant and the Municipal Council was rejected by the court. There was no question that, under section 80 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, the Commissioner in this case could not enter into a contract by himself and could only do so with the Municipal Corporation’s approval. According to the Corporation’s resolution, if the appellant paid the upset price and rent as specified in the Municipal Commissioner’s letter to him and failed to do so, the land should be returned to the Corporation's possession. Evidently, the conditions were the same as those in Ex.P. 20. Otherwise, it was not possible.
- After then, it was impossible to consider the Corporation to have maintained its 1949 offer. Additionally, the Commissioner was not permitted to make or accept any offers from the appellant regarding the land without the Municipal Council's approval. A year and a half after the lawsuit was launched, the appellants made a new offer on 17 March 1959; the Corporation, the only authority with the authority to accept it, rejected it on 31 May 1960. The Commissioner's communication with the appellant was totally outside of his authority.
- It was held that on September 22, 1959, there was no contract between the parties and that the appellant should be seen as a tenant holding over because he had paid the rent through 31 March, 1954 and the Municipal Commissioner had approved it.
- It should be noted that the payment was made at the rate in effect prior to September 30, 1949. Since the Corporation had already passed a resolution specifying a new rate rent of Rs. 9 per Chasma on that date, the appellant’s payment at the old rate and the Municipal Commissioner’s acceptance of it did not constitute an acceptance of rent in the traditional sense, but rather a clear recognition of the appellant’s tenancy rights. It could not be interpreted as the Corporation approving the appellant’s continued tenancy by accepting the previous rent amounts. Therefore, it was clear that the appellant was not a tenant holding over.
CONCLUSION
The appellant can be evicted without giving notice since he is only a tenant by sufferance. As a result, insofar as the High Court’s ruling that the appellant was subject to eviction was accurate. Appeals are denied with costs assessed. The request for receipt of more evidence is likewise denied.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
