2012 Supreme(SC) 257

Supreme Court of India
G.S. SINGHVI, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
Saroj Screens Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
Ghanshyam & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3107-3108 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 36724-36725 of 2009)
Decided on : 26-03-2012

IMPORTANT POINTS
State or its instrumentalities cannot act in violation of doctrine of equality.
Sanction of State Government u/s 70(5) is sine qua non of renewal of lease.

Headnote:(a) Administration of Justice – Judicial discipline – Appellant’s suit for renewal of lease based on cl. 5 of the lease deed decreed but reversed by High Court – High Court judgment not challenged and attaining finality – Appellant cannot now contend that Corporation was bound to renew his lease in terms of the lease deed. (Para 8)

       (b) Property Laws – Lease of public land – Renewal – Lease with one person subsisting – Renewed in favour of another person without cancelling earlier lease – Government also according sanction – Not permissible. (Para 9)

       (c) City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 – Section 70(5) – Corporation renewing lease in favour of appellant without sanction of State under section 70(5) – Not permissible. (Para 9)

       (d) City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 – Section 70 – Corporation property – Lease subsisting with one person – Without cancelling the same property renewed in name of appellant – State also according sanction – Even after cancelling earlier lease, new lease could not have been granted without following mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution – Action not sustainable. (Para 10, 16)

       (2011) 5 SCC 29; AIR 1967 SC 1427; (1979) 3 SCC 489; (1975) 1 SCC 70; (1980) 4 SCC 1; (1996) 6 SCC 530; (1991) 1 SCC 212; (1995) 5 SCC 482; (1996) 5 SCC 510 – Relied upon

       AIR 1969 Ker. 81; (1968) A.C.997; (1971) 2 QB 175 – Referred

       (1971) 3 SCC 864; (2004) 7 SCC 166 – Distinguished

       (e) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 116 – Appellant claiming possession – Claiming renewal in its name in terms of section 116 – No evidence to show possession with consent of Corporation’s lease holder Parmanand Mundhada or his heirs or respondent Nos.1 and 2 – Contention rejected. (Para 20)

       Facts of the case:

       A plot was leased by Municipal Committee of Nagpur to one Gopaldas Mohta (father of respondent No. 1 - Ghanshyam Mohta and father-in-law of respondent No. 2 - Smt. Kamla Devi) for a period of 30 years and the tenure of lease commenced from 17.3.1944.

       After about 3 years, Gopaldas Mohta leased out the plot to the appellant for a period of 27 years (from 28.3.1947 to 16.3.1974).

       In 1959, there was a partition in the family of Gopaldas Mohta and the plot in question came to the share of his wife Smt. Gangabai. She assigned the same to Parmanand Kisandas Mundhada of Calcutta by executing deed dated 12.8.1960. Thereafter, the name of Parmanand Mundhada was entered in the records of the Committee along with that of Smt. Gangabai. After 12 years, the appellant sent letter dated 15.1.1973 to Parmanand Mundhada indicating therein that it was ready to pay Rs.90,000/- and purchase the interest created in favour of Gopaldas Mohta vide lease deed dated 28.10.1944. The appellant also requested Parmanand Mundhada to approach the Corporation, which had succeeded the Committee, for renewal of the lease after 16.3.1974.

       Appellant filed Special Civil Suit No.96 of 1974 against Parmanand Mundhada, Gopaldas Mohta, Gangabai and the Corporation for the specific performance of agreement dated 10.9.1947 executed by Gopaldas Mohta.

       The suit filed by the appellant was decreed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur (’the trial Court’) but the same was reversed by the High Court in First Appeal Nos. 95 of 1980 and 96 of 1980 filed by the heirs of Parmanand Mundhada and respondent No.2 and the Corporation respectively.

       During the pendency of the suit filed by the appellant, the Corporation passed Resolution No.162 dated 29.10.1975 for renewal of lease in favour of Parmanand Mundhada for a period of 30 years subject to the condition of payment of ground rent at the rate of Rs.13,120/-per annum and penalty of Rs.3,000/- for breach of the conditions embodied in lease deed dated 28.10.1944.

       In furtherance of the aforesaid resolution, lease deed dated 4.9.1991 was executed between the Commissioner of the Corporation and the appellant.

       Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 challenged the decision of the Corporation to grant lease to the appellant in Writ Petition.

       The Corporation passed Resolution dated 22.7.1996 and cancelled the lease granted to the appellant on the ground that previous sanction of the State Government had not been obtained. In the meanwhile, the State Government accorded sanction for grant of lease to the appellant for a period of 30 years, i.e., from 16.3.1991 to 15.3.2021. This was communicated to the Corporation vide letter dated 12.6.2000.

       Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No.3661 of 2001 and prayed that communication dated 12.6.2000 be quashed.

       Writ petitions filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 were partly allowed, Resolution dated 28.8.1991 passed by Municipal Corporation of the City of Nagpur for renewal of lease in favour of the appellant as also sanction accorded by the State Government under Section 70(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 were quashed and a direction was issued to Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur to decide Special Civil Suit No. 1135 of 1993 latest by 31.12.2010.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.