Resolutions cancelling a long-term lease were deemed illegal, and established correspondence amounted to a concluded contract, affirming plaintiff's right to specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

1. The appellant has preferred this regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.520/1991 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Hubballi (for short “the trial Court”) dated 30.11.2000, which is confirmed by I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Hubballi (for short “the appellate Court”), in R.A.No.22/2001 dated 05.06.2007.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per the ranks before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the plaint are as under :-

The plaintiff filed this suit for specific performance of contract to execute the lease deed for 50 years in respect of suit property in favour of plaintiff No.1 and also for declaration that the Resolutions No.77 and 78 passed by defendant No.1 on 13.03.1989 are illegal and in violation of the agreed lease and equity and as a consequential relief to restrain the defendant from carrying on any other activities in the suit property, until the expiry of lease period.

-

4. The plaintiff-Mahila Vikas Mandali is a Society incorporated and registered under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 with the main object of promoting the welfare of women and children. The 2^nd plaintiff is the Member and Secretary of the plaintiff-Society.

5. The suit property is two acres of land in R.S.No.69 of Nagashettikoppa, Hubli for the construction of a home for destitute women and orphans and other activities of the first plaintiff-society.

6. On the request of the plaintiff, the State Government passed an order bearing No.HUD:44:AHD:79 Bangalore on 07.04.1980 according sanction under Section 176 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, for the sale of suit property in favour of first plaintiff at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per gunta. Pursuant to that order the defendant No.2 wrote a letter calling upon the first plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-as a sale consideration within 30 days from the date of letter. As the plaintiffs were not in a position to pay such a big amount at that time, requested the defendants to grant the suit property on long term lease and the State Government passed an order bearing No.HUD:55:AHD:80 Bangalore on 20.09.1980 according sanction for lease of the suit property in favour of plaintiffs for a period of 20 years on a yearly rent of Rs.1,000/- for the first ten years and Rs.2,000/- p.a. for the next 10 years.

-

7. It is further contended that the plaintiff No.1 paid the yearly rent of Rs.1,000/-on 14.10.1980 for the year 1980- 81 towards the rent of the suit property. The Government does not issue release grant for the construction of buildings, if the lease of the land is for a period less than 50 years. In view of the same, the plaintiffs again gave a representation to the State Government requesting that the lease be extended for a period of 99 years. In the meanwhile, the corporation authorities gave a draft lease deed, which contained unreasonable clauses including a clause that the Corporation could resume the land and building at any time even before the expiry of the lease without paying any compensation. The first defendant wrote a letter on 25.6.1982 calling upon the first plaintiff to show cause -why the lease should not be terminated on the ground that the petitioner had not paid lease rent. Immediately, plaintiff gave a detailed reply stating the reason why the lease deed has not been executed and paid Rs.2,000/- as annual rent for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. It was expl