Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh
RSA No.6496 of 2014 (O&M)
Hira Lal (Deceased) through his LRs Bhagan Bai & Ors.
v.
Wakf Dera Mahant Purshottam Dass & Ors.
{Decided on 11/01/2016}
For the Appellants:Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate and Mr. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Advocate.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.111--Determination of Lease--A lease of immovable property determines by certain modes i.e. by implied surrender and by forfeiture i.e in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that, on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter or in case lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself. (Para 11)
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.117--Applicability to Agricultural lands--In view of Section 117 of Transfer of Property Act none of the provisions of this Chapter apply to lease for agricultural purposes except insofar as State Government may by notification published in the Official Gazette declare all or any of such provisions to be so applicable. (Para 19)
Since no notification of the Government in the context of applicability of Transfer of Property Act has come on record, therefore, in the absence of such notification, Section 117 of Transfer of Property Act would not apply to the lease of agricultural land which are exempted from the provisions of the Act--Therefore, neither the provisions of Section 106 nor of Section 111 of Transfer of Property Act are applicable to the instant case, even otherwise only equitable principles of the provisions are applicable. (Para 19)
Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.:- 1. Defendants are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.
2. Plaintiff-Wakf Dera Mahant Purshotam Dass Chela Mahant Sehdev Dass filed suit for possession on the ground that Mahant Sehdev Dass Chela Mahant Ramji Dass owner of Wakf Dera in terms of compromise between the parties, leased out the suit land for 99 years vide registered lease deed No.3678 dated 23.09.1977. According to said lease deed, defendants lessee were to pay Rs.10/- annually to the plaintiff as lease amount. Mahant Sehdev Dass died on 21.12.1991 and after his death, Mahant Purshotam Dass became Mahant of said Dera as per custom and tradition of the plaintiff-Dera. Mehant Purshotam Dass is managing affairs of the Dera in respect of immovable and movable properties. Plaintiff alleged that defendants have violated the condition of lease deed and have made themselves liable for dispossession and cancellation of lease deed. Plaintiff sought possession of the land to be delivered to the plaintiff on the ground that defendants are not paying the lease money regularly against the valid receipt. Defendant No.1 without any written consent of the plaintiff subjected the land to sublet in respect of 8 kanals being 160/2105 share out of the land in favour of defendant No.5 vide registered lease deed No.3333 dated 13.09.2000 on the basis of which mutation No.2803 dated 17.10.2010 has been sanctioned. Plaintiff claimed that the mutation is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and plaintiff- Dera is entitled to get possession of the land measuring 8 kanals comprised in Kila No.7 which has been illegally leased out in favour of defendant No.5. Plaintiff also alleged that the suit land was leased out for agricultural purposes but the defendants have illegally sub-letted and transferred the suit property and are changing the nature by construction of houses and colonization and defendants are not paying any rent. Therefore, defendants are liable to be evicted from the suit land by cancelling the lease. The suit came to be filed with this back ground.
3. Defendants contested the suit by taking all customary pleas. Defendants alleged that Mahant Purshotam Dass has no right or authority to file the suit, nor he has any locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit. Plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. Civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendant No.1 admitted that the suit land was given on lease for 99 years by previous Mahant Sehdev Dass. Defendant No.2 alleged that plaintiff-Dera is the owner of suit land measuring 105 kanals 5 marlas as shown in the written statement and the said land was leased out to defendants No.1 to 3 by registered lease deed dated 23.09.1977 upto 22.09.2076 and defendants No.1 to 3 were put in possession of the land. Defendant No.2 is in possession to the extent of 2/3rd share and defendant No.1 is in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share. Defendant No.1 had already transferred lease rights in favour of defendant No.5 and his sons. Lease deed dated 23.09.1977 is claimed to be legal and valid. Defendant No.5 alleged that Ramesh Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Vijay Kumar sons of Hira Lal have not been impleaded as necessary parties and also admitted factum of lease deed executed in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 and defendant No.1 being lessee to the extent of 1/3rd share has transferred lease rights qua 8 kanals 10 marlas in favour of Ramesh Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Vijay Kumar sons of defendant No.5 from 05.12.2002 to 22.09.2076 for a lease amount of Rs.40,000/- through registered lease deed No.4780 dated 05.12.2002 and the possession of the land was handed over to aforesaid Ramesh Kumar etc. Defendants alleged that they have not violated the terms and conditions of the lease deed. Defendant No.1 has every right to transfer the lease rights in respect of 8 kanals of land in favour of Ramesh K
