HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
R. P. MOOKERJEE, SARMA SARKAR
INDIA ELECTRIC WORKS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
B. S. MANTOSH - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 122 Of 1952
Decided On : JUNE 13, 1955
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 108(H) - LEASE - FIXTURES - REMOVAL - RIGHT OF LESSEE - ESTOPPEL - COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, the owner of a shed constructed on leased premises, filed a suit against the defendant, the lessee, for a declaration that the defendant's right to the shed had been extinguished and had vested in the plaintiff. The defendant counterclaimed for compensation for the use and occupation of the shed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the defendant had lost its right to remove the shed under Section 108(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but that the plaintiff was estopped from denying the defendant's title to the shed by virtue of a compromise decree entered into between the parties. The court also held that the defendant was liable to pay compensation for the use and occupation of the shed, and assessed the compensation at Rs. 200 per month.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant had lost its right to remove the shed under Section 108(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? 2. Whether the plaintiff was estopped from denying the defendant's title to the shed? 3. Whether the defendant was liable to pay compensation for the use and occupation of the shed? 4. If so, what was the amount of compensation payable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 108(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not extinguish the lessee's title to fixtures erected on the leased premises after the expiry of the lease, but only prevents the lessee from enforcing the right of removal of such fixtures. 2. A compromise decree operates as an estoppel against the parties to the decree, and prevents them from denying the matters decided in the decree. 3. A tenant is liable to pay compensation to the landlord for the use and occupation of the leased premises after the expiry of the lease. 4. The amount of compensation payable for the use and occupation of the leased premises is to be assessed on a rental basis, taking into account the fair market value of the premises and the terms of the lease.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiff's appeal in part and modified the decree of the lower court. The court declared that the defendant had lost its right to remove the shed, but directed the defendant to remove the shed and give vacant possession of the land to the plaintiff within six months. The court also decreed compensation to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 200 per month from the date of the suit until the date of the decree. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal.
( 1 ) THESE five appeals arising out of the same judgment in three suits tried analogously have been heard together and this judgment will govern all of them. The facts out of which these appeals have arisen are not in dispute and may be briefly stated as follows:
( 2 ) PREMISES No. 25 South Road, Entally, Calcutta, belongs to one Nripendra Nath Deb who granted a lease of the same in favour of Messrs. F. S. Sehan and Co. along with a two storied building and some outhouses. This Company constructed a very big shed with iron framework; iron joists and angles, brackets and corrugated iron rooting on pucca brick walls for the purpose of a factory. They, however, sold the leasehold interest to one P. S. Mantosh who thereafter became the lessee of the premises under the owner. On 1-12-1927, Mantosh took fresh lease of the premises for a term of ten years, and this was evidenced by a registered lease, dated 16-3-1928 (Ex. 1 ). Before this, however, Mantosh had sublet the entire leasehold property together with the above mentioned factory shed to the India Electric Works Ltd. with effect from 1-10-1927, for a term of ten years, though no registered lease was executed. On 13-8-1937, Nripendra demanded vacant possession of the premises from P. S. Mantosh, on the expiry of the term of the lease and asked him to remove the structure, i. e. , the shed. It was not, however, removed, and the India Electric Works Ltd. took a lease of the premises from Nripendra with effect from 1-12-1937. This Company which will hereafter be referred to as the Company then called upon P. S. Mantosh to remove the shed from the premises. Certain correspondence passed between them regarding the matter and ultimately on 8-3-1938, Mantosh filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 12 of 1938 which was subsequently renumbered as No. a of 1939 in the Additional Court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipur, against the Company and Nripendra praying for a declaration of his right to pull dowa and remove the shed and for a mandatory injunction on the Company to remove their machineries for three months or such period as the Court thought reasonable for the convenience and speedy removal of the shed and. also for rent, taxes and damages. The suit was contested and during the pendency of the suit P. S. Mantosh died and his widow, son and daughter, who will hereafter be described as the Mantoshes, were substituted in his place. On 17-5-1940, the suit was compromised between the Mantoshes and the Company and a compromise decree was passed against the Company, the name of Nripendra having been expunged. According to the compromise decree the Company was to continue to use the shed for nine months from May, 1940, and was given the option to use it for a further period of two years thereafter on payment of Rs. 125/- per month for such use and occupation and was to pay a sum of Rs. 8,327/10, as damages for past use and occupation including costs. The Company exercised the option and continued to use the shed upto January, 1943, and paid compensation there for at the above rate except for the last two months. They had, however, been served with a notice to quit six months before the expiry of the period of two years and their prayer for extension of the period had been refused. As the Company was then engaged In productions for War they did not give UD possession hut requested' the Government to requisition the shed and this was requisitioned with effect from the 2-2-1944. The Mantoshes and the Government arrived at an agreement with regard to the compensation to be paid for the shed on 2-3-1945, and the amount of compensation was fixed at Rs. 350/-per month which was to be paid to them by the Government who would realise the same from the Company. The Company protested against the amount fixed but paid at this rate to the Land Acquisition Collector upto November, 1945, and the Land Acquisition Collector paid the same to the Mantoshes. On the 21-11-1945, the shed was derequisiti
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.