Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 450

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
State Of Orissa – Appellant
Versus
Santi Kumar Mitra & Another – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9355 of 2011
Decided on : 10-05-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Fereshte D. Sethna, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. Mr. Ameya Pant, Adv. Mr. Mohit Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Arkaprava Dass, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR

The determination of the lease was based on the lessee's breach of lease conditions, and the pending renewal application was directed to be considered by the appellant within 6 months.

Headnote:
lease - determination of lease - [Bihar and Orissa Government Estates Manual, 1919, Clauses 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20] - The court discussed the lease agreement and the Bihar and Orissa Government Estates Manual, 1919, and found that the lease was determined due to the lessee's breach of various lease conditions. The court also highlighted the lessee's admission of noncompliance with the lease terms, leading to the determination of the lease. The court directed the pending renewal application to be considered by the appellant within 6 months.
Fact of the Case:

The suit property, a Khasmahal, was originally leased for 30 years and subsequently renewed. The lease expired, and the Collector resumed the land due to the lessee's violations of the lease conditions. The plaintiffs, legal heirs of the lessee, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal, but the High Court dismissed the second appeal of the defendant. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the lease was determined due to the lessee's breach of lease conditions and directed the pending renewal application to be considered by the appellant within 6 months. The court confirmed the order of the Trial Court and set aside the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, correctness of the suit property description, legality of the resumption order, entitlement to lease renewal, entitlement to permanent injunction, and relief for the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lease was determined due to the lessee's breach of lease conditions and directed the pending renewal application to be considered by the appellant within 6 months. The court also confirmed the order of the Trial Court and set aside the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, and the pending renewal application was directed to be considered by the appellant within 6 months.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The appellant/State of Orissa has filed this appeal assailing the order of the High Court of Orissa dated 13/11/2009 passed in Second Appeal No.98/1993 whereunder second appeal filed by the appellant herein came to be dismissed and consequently the judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondents by the First Appellate Court in TA No.2/100 of 1992-1991 came to be affirmed.

2. The suit property, being a Khasmahal, measuring 594 decimals situated in Plot bearing No.894, Khata No.158, Balukhand Puri was originally leased in favour of one Shailendra Nath Mitra (hereinafter referred to as ''original lessee'') for 30 years commencing from 29/09/1905 and said lease was due to expire on 29/09/1935. On 16/10/1935, the original lessee applied for renewal of the lease which came to be referred as Lease Renewal Case No.40/1935-36.

3. Above being the situation, the original lessee expired on 04/06/1941 leaving behind his two sons Nalininath Mitra, Jatindranath Mitra (Father of the Plaintiffs), his wife Khagendrabala Mitra and his daughter-in-law Smt. Gauribala Mitra as his legal heirs. A substitution petition came to be filed by the legal heirs of original lessee in Case No.40/1935-36 and subsequently on 22/01/1944 the lease came to be renewed and a fresh lease deed came to be executed in favour of the legal heirs of the original lessee, for a further period of 30 years with effect from date of expiry viz., 26/09/1935. The aforesaid lease agreement executed in favour of the legal heirs of the original lessee expired on 25/09/1965.

4. On 23/12/1972, Late Nalininath Mitra (one of the lessee) preferred an application for renewal of the lease in Lease Renewal Case No.11/1972. The Revenue Officer, Puri, Orissa directed the case records to be forwarded to Tahsildar, Puri for enquiry and report. Pursuant to the order of the Revenue Officer, the Tahsildar after conducting field verification, submitted a report on 30/05/1975 to the Collector, Puri indicating that the structures over the suit property are dilapidated and that outsiders have occupied the house and consequently, the Tahsildar suggested for initiation of resumption proceedings.

5. Pursuant to the same, Balu Resumption Case No.6/1975 came to be registered. By order dated 21/08/1975, the Collector, Puri after considering the report of the Tahsildar, determined the lease by observing that the lessee had violated the terms of the lease agreement under clause 9 & 20 as prescribed under the Bihar and Orissa Government Estates Manual, 1919 and directed the lessee to surrender the lease hold land within 30 days from the date of notice. Accordingly, notice came to be issued to the lessee Nalininath Mitra on 22/08/1975, directing him to surrender the lease hold land after removing the structures within 30 days from the date of notice, failing which the Tahsildar would re-enter and take possession. Subsequently, the Collector after visiting the site and noting that the building is in utter state of disrepair passed an order on 17/09/1976 in Balu Resumption Case No.6/1975 directing the Tahsildar, Puri to take physical possession of the land and remove the standing structures. On 24/09/1976, the Tahsildar took over the physical possession of the lease hold land along with the building.

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

6. In the aforesaid factual scenario, the plaintiffs/respondents herein i.e. legal heirs of Jatindranath Mitra (another son of original lessee) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in OS No.161/402-90/86 praying for declaration that the order of the Collector dated 21/08/1975 in Resumption Case No.6/1975 as illegal, without jurisdiction and to direct the Collector to renew the lease and pass a decree directing the defendant/appellant herein to execute and register a lease deed in respect of the suit property by way of renewal in favour of the plaintiffs, and to pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from leasing out the