2019 Supreme(SC) 563

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, M.R. Shah, JJ.
State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand) Through the Sub Divisional Officer - Appellant
Versus
Tata Iron – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3861 of 2014
Decided On : 09-05-2019

IMPORTANT POINT
Interpretation of contract - Words expressly mentioned in one place but not in another place must be taken to have been deliberately omitted - Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius.
Parties cannot travel beyond the terms and conditions of the contract.
When the Respondent and the Appellant agreed that recoveries of arrears of rent may be affected under the Public Demands Act, it is not open to the Respondent to contend that the demand made for payment of interest under the Lease Deed is not a public demand.

Headnote:(a) Interpretation of Contracts - Deed ought to be read as a whole - word of each Clause should be so interpreted as to bring it into harmony with the other provisions of the deed, if that interpretation does no violence to the meaning of which they are naturally susceptible - Words expressly mentioned in one place but not in another place must be taken to have been deliberately omitted - Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius - Instantly, Clause (xii) and Clause (xv) of the lease deed pertain to two different types of lands - Clause (xii) relates to properties falling in Clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (v), (vi), (ix) and (x) which were developed by setting up industries, buildings, structures, roads, civic amenities, hospitals, etc. - Clause (xv) dealt with the lands settled by the Government on a fixed jama on a period of five years at a time for being utilized for hats, bazaars, melas, Jalkars, fisheries and other Sairats from which the Respondent was earning money - High Court rightly held that the word “per annum” was intentionally included in Clause (xv) of the Lease Deed and excluded from Clause (xii) of the Lease Deed - The State could not travel beyond the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed and issue a demand for payment of interest under Clause (xii) by calculating the same on a yearly basis. (Para 8, 12, 15)

       (b) Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 - Section 3(6) r/w Sections 7D and 7E, Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 - BLR not providing for payment of interest - Demand of interest raised by Recovery Officer not a public demand - However, the Respondent and the Appellant agreeing in Clause (xx) of the Lease Deed that recoveries of arrears of rent may be affected under the Public Demands Act - Hence not open to the Respondent to contend that the demand made for payment of interest under the Lease Deed is not a public demand. (Para 9, 16)

       (1973) 2 SCC 815 : AIR 1973 SC 2609; (1989) 1 SCC Suppl. 487: AIR 1989 SC 1834; (2000) 6 SCC 12; (2003) 4 SCC 695; (1893) (1915) 1 Ch. 268; [2010] UKSC 47 - Referred

       Facts of the case:

       The Certificate Officer, Jamshedpur issued a notice for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,97,97,527.92/- towards interest on arrears of rent payable by the Respondent on 10.05.1994. The objection raised by the Respondent was rejected by an order dated 23.01.1996. The Respondent filed a Writ Petition challenging the demand and the order dated 23.01.1996 of the Certificate Officer in the High Court of Bihar at the Ranchi Bench (now Jharkhand), which was allowed.

       Land was acquired and conveyed to the Respondent between the years 1912-1929 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for setting up an industry. The Respondent established an integrated steel plant, allied manufacturing units, township, civic amenities for its staff, hospitals, schools, parks, etc. The entire township came up gradually which was renamed as Jamshedpur.

       By virtue of enactment of Bihar Land Reforms Act and subsequent amendments the land given to the respondent ultimately came to be treated as lease and a formal lease deed was executed on 01.08.1985. A demand was raised by the State Government for payment of Rs.1.95 Crores as rent along with interest as per Clause (xii) of the Lease Deed on 11.09.1985. A further demand of Rs.2.19 Crores was made on 18.10.1985 towards rent coupled with interest in terms of Clause (xv) of the Lease Deed. The Respondent complied with the demand and made the payments.

       The Secretary in the State Government directed the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur to re-calculate the interest on the arrears of rent payable under Clause (xii) of the Lease Deed on a yearly basis in the same manner as done for the rent on the lands under Clause (xv) and realize the same from the Respondent. A certificate proceeding was issued by the District Collector, Jamshedpur under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 by which the Respondent was directed to pay Rs.5.97 Crores towards interest calculated on per annum basis in respect of the lands under Clause (xii) of the Lease Deed.

       On 23.01.1996, the Certificate Officer rejected the objections that were filed by the Respondent. Questioning the legality and validity of the demand and the Order of the Certificate Officer by which the objections were rejected, the Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which has been allowed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Demand arising out of lease should be determined as per terms of the lease.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.