Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
The General Secretary, Vivekananda Kendra – Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2026 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9558 of 2023
Decided On : 26-02-2026
(A) Interpretation of Contract/Deed – If words in a contract/deed are clear, there is very little Courts must do in construction of contract in determining intention of parties – Deed must be read as a whole to ascertain true meaning of its clauses, and words of each clause should be interpreted harmoniously – Covenants must be applied precisely as written, neither diluted into irrelevance nor stretched beyond their original scope – If construction of contract/deed, through its words and context, does not provide Court with parties’ intention, Court may have regard to circumstances surrounding its creation and subject-matter to which it was designed and intended to apply – While circumstances of a deed are not the safest guide for interpreting a crystallised document, Courts may rely on it when document’s purport is unclear through literal construction – However, Courts must exercise far greater restraint when inferring parties’ intention from circumstances arising after creation of terms. (Paras 16, 19 and 20)
(B) Interpretation of Contract/Deed – Literal Construction – Interpreting intention through purposive construction or through ex-post facto circumstances is unnecessary when intention is understood from plain and ordinary meaning of text – Nomenclature alone of document is not the decisive factor of nature of a document; it is text and context that point to obligations undertaken by parties to a written document. (Para 21)
(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 111 – Unilateral Cancellation of Lease – Plaintiff is a lessee and document satisfies meaning of lease deed – Unless parties agree bilaterally, disturbing Plaintiff’s possession is illegal – Unilateral cancellation, in facts and circumstances of this case, is illegal, and it should be understood as having interfered with right of Plaintiff to remain in possession of Plaint Schedule Property for 99 years – Prayers, as made, are available and rightly granted by Trial and First Appellate Court – Impugned judgment set aside – Civil Appeal allowed. (Paras 20.1, 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Civil Appeal arises from judgment and decree dated 23.12.2022 in RSA No. 123 of 2021 in High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. Plaintiff in the Civil Suit No. 100/524 of 2011-2005 before Court of Civil Judge, Baripada, is Appellant. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are Defendant Nos. 3, 4, and 2, respectively, in Civil Suit.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment is set aside. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are vendees from first Defendant, and rights which are preserved and protected in favour of lessor are allowed to be enjoyed by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case involving lease and possession disputes. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. legal observations and findings from trial and appellate courts. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. distinction between lease and licence as per law. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 4. conclusion on document interpretation leading to illegal cancellation of lease. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 5. final ruling to allow civil appeal with no costs. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. We have heard Mr. Rutwik Panda, learned Counsel for the Appellant, and Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, learned Senior Counsel, for the Respondents.
3. The Civil Appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2022 in RSA No. 123 of 2021 (for short, “impugned judgment”) in the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The Plaintiff in the Civil Suit No. 100/524 of 2011-2005 (for short, “Civil Suit”) before the Court of Civil Judge, Baripada, is the Appellant. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are Defendant Nos. 3, 4, and 2, respectively, in the Civil Suit.
4. The subject matter of the Civil Appeal is described in Schedule – ‘A’ of the plaint, which is detailed as below (for short, “Plaint Schedule Property”):
| “SCHEDULE – ‘A’ | ||
| The land situated in Mouza - Baripada town Ward No.4 (Golapbag) under Baripada town Police station recorded in the name of the anima Bose under Khata No.6. | ||
| Plot No. | Kisam | Area |
| 203 | Gharabari-I | Ac. 0.070 decimals” |
5. Anima Bose was the owner and the possessor of the Plaint Schedule Property. She was associated with the objectives and ideals of the Vivekananda Kendra, Kanyakumari. Anima Bose died on 07.03.2007. For the present, it is apposite to refer to a few dates and events preceding the filing of the Civil Suit.
6. On 23.03.1998, during the lifetime, Late Anima Bose, executed Exhibit 1 (For short, “Ext. 1”), termed as a “lease deed” in favour of the Vivekananda Kendra. The salient features of the lease deed are that Anima Bose, in her capacity as the owner, intended to lease the Plaint Schedule Property to the lessee/Vivekananda Kendra. Late Anima Bose recognised the reason for which the Plaint Schedule Property is put in possession of the Kendra, i.e., for the purpose of having a centre of the Vivekananda Kendra, and to carry out the aims and objects as per its memorandum of rules and guidelines. The lease is for 99 years. Anima Bose set out the rent at Rs. 1,000 per annum. The Kendra claims to have set up a branch centre at the subject Plaint Schedule Property. On 03.12.2003, Anima Bose cancelled the registered lease deed dated 23.03.1998. Vide notice dated 14.12.2003, she called upon the Kendra to surrender vacant possession of the Plaint Schedule Property. The Kendra, on 02.01.2004, replied, asserting its right to continue for 99 years under the lease deed dated 23.03.1998. Anima Bose, on 03.05.2005, executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Sujit Kumar Mohanty. The Vivekananda Kendra admits that on 09.05.2005, its possession was forcibly disturbed and taken. Anima Bose, represented by her Power of Attorney: Sujit Kumar Mohanty, executed a sale deed dated 17.01.2006, in favour of Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla and Ratandeep Agarwalla.
7. Vivekananda Kendra/Plaintiff filed a Civil Suit against Anima Bose/Defendant No. 1, Sujit Kumar Mohanty/Defendant No. 2, Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla/Defendant No. 3 and Ratandeep Agarwalla/Defendant No.4. The Civil Suit is filed for the declaration of Plaintiff’s leasehold rights, recovery of possession, and a mandatory injunction. The averments in the plaint are summed up and stated thus:
7.1 The Plaint Schedule Property, admittedly owned by Defendant No. 1, was initially leased to the Plaintiff by Defendant No. 1 via a registered 99-year Lease Deed No. 890 dated 23.03.1998, under which the Plaintiff carried out spiritual and service activities and made constructions like the Ashram Building.
7.2 However, Defendant No. 1 unilaterally executed a Deed of Cancellation
(1) Decisive consideration in determining whether an agreement creates relationship of lessor and lessee or merely that of licensor and licensee is intention of parties – This intention has to be asc....
The distinction between a license and a lease is determined by the intention of the parties, as reflected in the deed, rather than merely the possession of the property.
Determination of lease vs licence hinges on the parties' intent and statutory interpretations concerning commercial properties, affirming precedent.
The distinction between lease and license must adhere to explicit terms of agreements, with possession alone insufficient to confer tenancy rights.
The employer was at liberty to allot any other flat to the employee on his transfer to another station and assign the premises fallen vacant by virtue of transfer to any other employee.
Owner of immovable property on termination of license is entitled to maintain suit for mandatory injunction against licensee to vacate property.
The intention of the parties, as expressed in contractual language, determines the distinction between a landlord-tenant relationship and that of a licensor-licensee.
A lease must be explicitly stated as permanent to be considered as such; otherwise, it is interpreted as a lifetime tenancy, allowing for the reversion of possession upon the death of the lessee.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
