SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 736

2010 (6) Supreme 358
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Kamla Verma — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6563 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP) No.20368 of 2007)
Decided on : 13-8-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Nobody can transfer any right better than what he had in respect of the land in question.

Headnote:(a) Policy and procedure for dehiring of houses dated 19.11.1979 – a Para 19 Clause (c) – Property in question was held by Shri Roop Krishan Seth on “cantonment tenure” – It means “old grant” terms – Clearly, the land holder was not a full-fledged owner of the property in question – Authorities had a right to resume possession of the whole or any portion of the property in question during the period of tenancy without being liable to the land holder in any way. (Para 8)

        1999 (3) SCC 555 – Relied upon

        (b) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 8 – Nobody can transfer any right better than what he had in respect of the land in question. (Para 12)

        (c) Policy and procedure for dehiring of houses dated 19.11.1979 – Para 19 Clause (c) – The property being held by the respondents under ‘old grant’, it is always open to the appellants to resume the land in question and they can not be prevented from resuming the land in question. (Para 18)

       Facts of the case:

        1. The respondent- original petitioner before the High Court had filed the writ petition praying that the premises situated at 14, Kasturba Marg, (Old No. 15, Tomb Road) Lucknow Cantt., be de-hired under the policy of Central Government as reflected in Para 19 Clause (c) of the Policy and procedure for dehiring of houses dated 19.11.1979 (as amended on 19.3.1985) as the premises in question was not being used by the respondents because it was in a dilapidated condition.

        2. After considering the fact that the premises was not in good shape and was not in use by the respondents, the High Court allowed the petition by directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to undertake repair works of the premises in question and to de-hire the same with immediate effect.

       Finding of the Court:

        Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Anil R. Dave, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19th January, 2007 delivered by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 1661 (M/B) of 1998, the original respondents before the High Court have approached this Court by way of this appeal.

3. The facts giving rise to the litigation in a nutshell are as under:-

The respondent- original petitioner before the High Court had filed the aforesaid writ petition praying that the premises situated at 14, Kasturba Marg, (Old No. 15, Tomb Road) Lucknow Cantt., be de-hired under the policy of Central Government as reflected in Para 19 Clause (c) of the Policy and procedure for dehiring of houses dated 19.11.1979 (as amended on 19.3.1985) as the premises in question was not being used by the respondents because it was in a dilapidated condition.

4. After considering the fact that the premises was not in good shape and was not in use by the respondents, the High Court allowed the petition by directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to undertake repair works of the premises in question and to de-hire the same with immediate effect.

5. The High Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a landlady and as per Policy of the Central Government, she had a right to get the property de-hired especially when the respondent authorities were not using the same. The High Court had taken into account contents of a letter dated 29th November, 1996, addressed to the Director, DE written by the Defence Estate Officer of Lucknow Cantt. for coming to the above conclusion. The High Court came to the conclusion that the reference to “old grant” seemed to be misconceived as there was nothing on record to show that the land in question was allotted to the vendor of the petitioner lady on “old grant”. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the respondents - Government authorities have filed this appeal.

6. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants - original respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment is bad in law for the reason that certain factual aspects which had been placed on record alongwith the counter affidavit filed before the High Court had not been considered and, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is not correct.

7. It has been submitted by him that the premises in question had been granted on “old grant” terms to Shri Roop Krishan Seth, son of Shri Rai Bahadur Prabhu Dayal Seth. Thereafter under an agreement dated 26th July, 1948, the premises in question had been leased to the present appellants. A copy of the said agreement was very much on record of the High Court as it had been annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the present appellants - original respondents before the High Court. Subsequently, the property in question had been inherited by Shri Mohan Krishan Seth, son of Shri Roop Krishan Seth. Thereafter, the property in question had been transferred in favour of the present respondent, namely, Smt. Kamla Verma who was the petitioner before the High Court.

8. So as to substantiate his case, he has drawn our attention to the contents of the agreement dated 26th July, 1948, whereby the property in question had been leased to the appellant authorities. In the preface of the agreement, it has been clearly stated that the property in question was held by Shri Roop Krishan Seth on “cantonment tenure” or in other words it means “old grant” terms. The said fact denotes that Shri Roop Krishan Seth was not a full-fledged owner of the property in question. Had he been the owner of the property in question, the reference to “cantonment tenure” would not have been made in the said agreement. Moreover, in clause iv (5) of the said agreement, it has been stated that the authorities had a right to resume possession of the whole or any portion of the property in question, during the period of tenancy without being liable to Shri Roop Krishan Seth in any wa





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top