High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
KAMLESH SHARMA
MOHAN LAL - Appellant
Versus
CANTONMENT BOARD, KASAULI - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 74 of 1997
Decided On : 04/11/1997
CANTONMENT ACT, 1924 - SECTION 200 - TRANSFER OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS - PUBLIC AUCTION - LICENSEES - NO RIGHT TO CONTINUE OCCUPYING SHOPS AFTER REVOCATION OF LICENSE - NO NOTICE REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, who were shopkeepers in a cantonment area, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Cantonment Board from dispossessing them from their shops or interfering with their business. The Board had decided to auction the shops for a period of three years, and the petitioners claimed that they had a legal right to continue occupying the shops as lessees holding over.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were not lessees but only licensees, and that their license had been revoked when they were asked to hand over the vacant possession of the shops. The court also held that the Transfer of Property Act did not apply to the property of cantonment boards, and that the petitioners' rights were governed by the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had a legal right to continue occupying the shops as lessees holding over. 2. Whether the Transfer of Property Act applied to the property of cantonment boards.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners were not lessees but only licensees, as their occupancy rights were transferred to them by way of public auction or private treaty, and that the enjoyment of occupancy rights for any length of time did not create or confer any tenancy right. 2. The court held that the Transfer of Property Act did not apply to the property of cantonment boards, as Section 287 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 only extended certain provisions of the Transfer of Property Act to cantonment boards with respect to transfer of property by registered instrument.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the petitioners had no prima facie case and were not entitled to the injunction prayed for.
KAMLESH SHARMA, J.—Petitioners are plaintiffs, who have filed civil suit in i the court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Solan for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining respondent-defendant Cantonment Board, Kasauli, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan from dispossessing them from their respective shops or from interfering with their respective business and putting the said shops to auction on 24-2-1997, as mentioned in auction notice No. CBK/Bldg/3-1434 dated 3-2-1997 either by itself or through its agents, servants and officials. In the Civil Suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. has also been filed for interim injunction order, which was dismissed by the Sub Judge on 10-3-1997. The appeal against the order of the Sub Judge has also been dismissed by the District Judge, Solan by the impugned judgment dated 20-3-1997. Hence, the present revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are transacting business in the shops in question, which are of the respondent Board. Admittedly, earlier the shops used to be allotted in public auction but lately these were given under private treaty entered between the petitioners and the respondent Board whereby rent of the shops was fixed from year to year basis. Last private treaty was for the financial year commencing from 1st April, 1993 to 31st March, 1994. But even thereafter the respondent Board has been accepting the rent till it took decision on 2-1-1997 to auction the shops for a period of three years, for which public notice dated 3-2-1997 was given to hold auction on 24-2-1997. This gave cause of action to the petitioners to file the civil suit alleging that since the shops were not auctioned after 31-3- 1994 and the petitioners were permitted to continue in possession on the same terms and conditions they are holding over the shops and the respondent Board has no authority to auction them before 31-3-1997. It is also alleged that without terminating the lease of the petitioners they cannot be asked to hand over the vacant possession of the shops.
3. The respondent Board has resisted the suit and has pointed out that it is i within its right to transfer the occupancy right of the shops by the mode provided under Section 200 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (hereinafter called the Act). It is also alleged that earlier no auction was held as the matter was pending before this Court in CWP No. 748 of 1994, which has been dismissed by judgment dated 7-11-1996 holding that transfer of occupancy rights in the shops can be made by no other mode except the mode provided under Section 200 of the Act. Accordingly, decision dated 2-1-1997 was taken by the respondent Board to transfer the occupancy rights in the shops by public auction which was to be held on 24-2-1997 in which the petitioners might also participate if they so desired.
4. From the record of CWP No. 748 of 1994, it is clear that the petitioners had approached this Court when the respondent Board had decided to give the shops to existing lessees on an enhanced rate of 15% of the existing rent for the year 1994-95 under Section 200 of the Act and directed them to submit a non-judicial stamp paper so that further action might be taken for execution of the agreement, failing which the shops would be got vacated. The petitioners had challenged the said notices in the writ petition and prayed for direction to the respondent Board, inter alia, to enter into leases with them for the occupation of the shops as per Rule 8 of the Cantonment Property Rules, 1925 for a period exceeding 30 years at a reasonable rent declaring Section 200 of the Act ultra vires. Rejecting the claim of the petitioners this Court has held that transfer of occupancy rights in the shops can be by no other mode except by the mode provided under Section 200 of the Act, which provides for transfer by way of public auction for a maximum period of three years and by way of private treaty unde
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.