Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Deoki Nandan, J.
STATE OF U.P. - Appellant
Versus
PHOOL CHAND AGARWAL - Respondents
Second Appeal 1873 Of 1978
Decided On : 01/27/1982
LEASE - TENANCY - CREATION - ABSENCE OF CONTRACT - SECTION 106, T. P. ACT - APPLICABILITY - LEASE IN FAVOUR OF GOVERNMENT - REQUIREMENT OF REGISTERED INSTRUMENT - ARTICLE 299, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Uttar Pradesh took possession of a house for use as an office for a Training-cum-Extension Centre. The plaintiffs, the owners of the house, filed a suit for possession and compensation for use and occupation, claiming that the occupation of the house by the State was permissive and not that of a tenant.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the lower appellate court held that the relationship of landlord and tenant or lessor and lessee did not exist between the parties, and that the possession of the State was permissive.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant is not tenant of suit premises? If so its effect? 2. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 3. Whether the suit is undervalued and the court-fees paid thereon is insufficient?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (T. P. Act) creates a lease from year to year or from month to month in the absence of a contract to the contrary, but it does not apply to cases where there is a complete absence of any contract between the parties relating to the lease. 2. A lease of immovable property in favor of the Government can be made only by a registered instrument duly signed by both the lessor and the lessee, and as far as the Government is concerned, signed and executed on its behalf in the manner prescribed by Article 299 of the Constitution of India. 3. In the absence of a valid and enforceable agreement of lease between the parties, and in the absence of a registered instrument duly executed by the lessor and lessee, no lease can be deemed to come into existence under Section 106 of the T. P. Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the lower courts that the relationship of landlord and tenant or lessor and lessee did not exist between the parties was upheld.
( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by the State of Uttay Pradesh, Hem Chandra Joshi, District Industries officer has been added as the second appellant. The two respondents who are indisputably the owners of a house situate at Vikasnagar in the district of Dehradun the boundaries of which are described at the foot of the plaint, instituted the suit giving rise to the present second appeal, against the State of Uttar Pradesh, the said Hem Chandra Joshi, District Industries Officer dehradun and K. N. Rai. Foreman. Training-cum-Extension Centre. Vikasnagar tor possession over the house and for compensation for use and occupation, or mesne profits at Rs. 200/- per month for the period commencing 1st March. 1974 up to the date of delivery of possession over the house to the Plaintiffs. The facts as alleged in the plaint were that in August, 1980, the then district Industries Officer, Dehradun, approached Ramesh Chandra, the second plaintiff for taking the house on rent for the residence and office of the Incharge or Foreman, of the Training cum-Extension Centre, Vikasnagar. The second plaintiff, it is alleged, "offered to give the same on monthly rent of Rs. 200/ -. ", which was accepted by the then District Industries Officer by letter dated 22nd Aug. 1968, but certain additions and alterations were required to be carried out and it was agreed that the house would be taken after the same were carried out. That having been done, the then Incharge of the Trainmg-cum-Extension Centre, Vikasnagar, took the house on 1st Oct 1968 at the agreed rent of Rs. 200/- per month for five years and the second plaintiff executed, as the lessor, on 1st Oct. 1968, a lease deed in duplicate on the form supplied by the office of the District Industries Officer. Dehradun, and his signatures having been witnessed, the same was transmitted for due execution on behalf of Government of U. P. as the lessee.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff proceeds on to allege that the second plaintiff believes that the deed had not been executed on behalf of the lessee, nor was the same registered, and under the circumstances "no valid lease existed between the Government and the plaintiffs; nor the relationship of landlord and tenant, or lessor and lessee has ever come into existence. " and that the occupation of the incharge, Training-com-Extension Centre. Vikasnagar (Foreman, Rajkiya Prashikshan Evam prasar Kendra) "purporting to be on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh has all along been permissive. " It is then alleged that the stipulated period of five years having expired, the further occupation of the house by the Incharge, Training-cum-Extension Centre, Vikasnagar, has become unauthorised and illegal. This is followed by the allegation that the property could be let out on a monthly rent of more than Rs. 200/- and that the amount of Rs. 1400/- was due for the period 1st August, 1973 to 28th Feb. 1974 but on the service of the notice dated 2nd March, 1974 by the plaintiffs, the amount of Rs. 1400/- had been received by the plaintiffs and the defendants were in arrears from 1st Mar. 1974 onwards.
( 3 ) THE defence was that the property was taken on rent for a period of five years and the defendant "did continue in the property as tenant since thereafter. " It was denied that the occupation of the house by the Incharge, Training-cum-Extension Centre was unauthorised and illegal; that the property was occupied by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the said centre had no independent existence apart from the State. The liability to pay rent at the agreed rate was admitted but the claim of compensation for use and occupation was denied. The claim for possession was also refuted. The plea of undervaluation and deficiency in court-fees was also raised. In para 24 of the written statement, under the additional pleas, it was said that "in any case the plaintiff had himself executed the lease deed and it is for the defendant to complete the same in case it has not been complet
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
