SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1951 Supreme(Pat) 80

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Das and Sarjoo Prasad JJ.
Jai Narain
Versus
Syed Alt Murtam
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 2138 of 1949 ;
Decided On : MAY 16, 1951

A lessee is entitled to a notice determining the lease as provided by S. 111 (g), Transfer of Property Act, before eviction.

Headnote:

{'KEYWORD': 'LEASE - FORFEITURE - NOTICE - O. 2, R. 2, CIVIL P. C. - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, S. 111 (g) - LICENSE - DISTINCTION', 'SUBJECT': 'Lease, Forfeiture, Notice, O. 2, R. 2, Civil P. C., Transfer of Property Act, S. 111 (g), License, Distinction', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['O. 2, R. 2, Civil P. C.', 'Transfer of Property Act, S. 111 (g)']}

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff leased a piece of land from the City Municipality for a petrol pump and shop. He entered into an agreement with the defendant to transfer the management of the shop to him in consideration of a monthly premium. The defendant took possession of the land and got the petrol pump transferred to his name. The plaintiff's lease expired in March 1946, and he applied to the Municipality for a fresh lease. The defendant also applied for a lease and changed the name of the business. The plaintiff served a notice on the defendant to quit the land by 30th September 1947, but the defendant did not vacate the premises. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction and accounts.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court found that the plaintiff continued to be a lessee in respect of the premises but that he had failed to make out a case of forfeiture. It also held that the claim for accounts was not maintainable and that the suit was barred by O. 2, R. 2, Civil P. C. The lower appellate court held that the plaintiff was entitled to sue and that the defendant had forfeited his right under the agreement. It decreed the suit.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff's lease had come to an end and he had no title to the property? 2. Whether the defendant had forfeited his right under the agreement? 3. Whether the suit was barred by O. 2, R. 2, Civil P. C.?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The plaintiff's lease had not come to an end as he had applied for a fresh lease from the Municipality. 2. The defendant had not forfeited his right under the agreement as the plaintiff had not given him a fresh notice to quit after the disclaimer made in the Small Cause Court suit. 3. The suit was barred by O. 2, R. 2, Civil P. C. as the plaintiff could have claimed all the reliefs in the Small Cause Court suit but had omitted to do so.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the decree of the lower appellate court was set aside, and the decree of the trial court was restored.

Judgment

Sarjoo Prosad, J.

1. The defendant is the appellant in this appeal which relates to a suit for injunction and accounts. The plaintiff in the action took in lease a piece of land in Mohalla Sabzibagh of the Patna town from the City Municipality for the purpose of installing a petrol pump and erecting a shop for motor accessories. The lease was under a registered document dated 29th March 1941, for a term of five years with option for renewal for a further period of five years. After obtaining the lease, the plaintiff put up a temporary shed on the site and got a petrol pump installed, and he ran the business under the name and style of Ali & Sons. Finding some difficulties in carrying on the business, the plaintiff on 28th August 1945, entered into an agreement with the defendant. The terms of the agreement have assumed some importance in the case and may have to be referred to in some detail at a later stage in the judgment. For the present it may be sufficient to observe that the purport of the agreement was to transfer the entire management of the shop to the defendant, and the plaintiff in consideration thereof was entitled to the payment of a monthly premium of Bs. 20 only with effect from September 1945. The defendant in his turn undertook to run the business in its old name with the option to get the petrol pump transferred to his own name. By virtue of the agreement the defendant was duly let into occupation and possession of the land, and in course of the year it appears that the Standard Vacuum Oil Company transferred the lease of the petrol pump to the defendant. The lease granted by the Municipality to the plaintiff expired in March 1946, and thereafter the defendant applied to the Municipality for grant of the lease to him and changed the original name of the business. The plaintiff states that in view of this conduct of the defendant he served a notice on 9th September 1947, terminating the agreement and asking the defendant to quit the land and the business by 30th September 1947. The defendant, however, did not vacate the premises. The plaintiff then instituted a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Patna being S. c. C. Suit No. 109/99 of 1947 for recovery of arrears of premium from May 1946 to September 1947. In that suit, it is alleged, the defendant pleaded, inter alia, that the plaintiff had no title to the lease given by the Municipality after the expiry of the term of five years mentioned therein. The S. C. C. suit was deoreed on 16-9-1948, and in revision the decision of the learned Judge was affirmed by this Court on 24-3-1949. The plaintiff in the meantime had filed the present suit on 27-2-1948, urging that the lease in favour of the plaintiff granted by the Municipality continued to operate and the defendant having repudiated the plaintiffs title had forfeited his right under the agreement dated 28-8-1945, to remain on the land. The plaintiff accordingly prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from going near the site or working the petrol pump or having any concern with the premises. There was a further prayer for accounting and for a decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect of any sum found payable to him from the defendant.

2. The defence to the action substantially was that the defendant had been inducted on the site by the plaintiff as a sub-leasee subject to the payment of Bs. 20 only to the latter, and that the agreement in question was not merely to transfer the right of management with respect to the concern. It was further urged that the plaintiffs lease having expired and no fresh lease having been granted to him, the suit at the instance of the plaintiff was not maintainable, he having no title to the property and that no case of forfeiture had at all been made out. The defendant further averred that the present suit was barred under 0. 2, R. 2, Civil P. C.

3. The learned Munsif who tried the suit found that the plaintiff continued to be a lessee in respect of


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top