Back
2012 Supreme(All) 231
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
B.S.Verma, J.
Hardev Lal Sharma -Appellant
Versus
Pateshwari Electricals and AssociAted Industries Pvt.Ltd.Co. -Respondent
Second Appeal No. 524 of 2001 (SA No. 845 of 1994), Second Appeal No. 1069 of 2001 (SA No. 846 of 1994), Second Appeal No. 1070 of 2001 (SA No. 847 of 1994), Second Appeal No. 1068 of 2001 (SA No. 848 of 1994), Second Appeal No. 1071 of 2001 (SA No. 849 of 1994), Second Appeal No. 1072 of 2001 (SA No. 850 of 1994), Second Appeal No. 1073 of 2001 (SA No. 851 of 1994), Second Appeal No. 1074 of 2001 (SA No. 852 of 1994), Second Appeal No. 1079 of 2001 (SA No. 854 of 1994) & Second Appeal No. 1080 of 2001 (SA No. 855 of 1994)
Decided On : 20-1-2012
The main legal point established is the distinction between lease and licence, ascertained based on the intention of the parties, conduct, and surrounding circumstances, as per Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 2-A of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act.
Headnote:
Licencee - Property Dispute - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - [Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 2-A of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed separate suits against the defendants for a decree of mandatory injunction claiming ownership of the property known as Balrampur House and its outhouses. The defendants contested the suits, denying the plaintiff's ownership and claiming to be tenants of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suits, holding the plaintiff not entitled to any relief. The first appellate court, after re-evaluating the evidence, held that the defendants were licensees and not tenants, and decreed the suits in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed to the High Court, which upheld the first appellate court's decision, granting the defendants six months to vacate the property.
Issues: Ownership of the property, nature of the relationship between the parties (licensee or tenant), sufficiency of court fee, maintainability of the suits, and applicability of statutory protection under the U.P. Urban Buildings Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the evidence and found that the defendants were licensees based on the conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances. It held that the suits for mandatory injunction were not barred by Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. The court also emphasized the distinction between lease and licence as per Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 2-A of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the first appellate court's decision and granting the defendants six months to vacate the property.
Since the controversy involved in all these Second Appeals is similar. Separate civil suits were filed by the same plaintiff against the defendants in respect of separate property including out-houses situated within the premises of Balrampur House Nainital, therefore, for the sake of convenience they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. All these second appeals are directed against separate judgment and decree dated 25-7-1994 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Nainital, in separate civil appeal, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 31-3-1989 in each suit was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for mandatory injunction was decreed. The defendant in each suit was directed to deliver possession of the property in suit to the plaintiff within a period of two months.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present second appeals are that the plaintiff-respondent herein filed separate suit against each of the defendants for a decree of mandatory injunction that the plaintiff-company is the owner and landlord of the building known as Balrampur House including its outhouses.
4. According to the plaintiff-respondent, defendant-appellant Haridev Lal Sharma of Second Appeal No. 524 of 2001 is a licensee of Out House No. H.-15 (for short property in suit) at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month as licence fee including the electricity and water charges as well as scavenging tax. The defendant is said to have fallen in arrears of licence fee worth Rs. 8940/-.
5. The defendant-appellant Kuber Singh in Second Appeal No. 1069 of 2001 is a licensee of Room No. I-2 and J-1 of Balrampur House (for short property in suit) @ Rs. 35/- per month as licence fee including the electricity and water charges as well as scavenging tax. The defendant is said to have fallen in arrears of licence fee worth Rs. 9940/-.
6. The defendant-appellant Digpal Singh Bisht in Second Appeal No. 1070 of 2001 is a licensee of Outhouse No. A-2 of Balrampur House (for short property in suit) @ Rs. 35/- per month as licence fee including the electricity and water charges as well as scavenging tax. The defendant is said to have fallen in arrears of licence fee worth Rs. 2310/-.
7. The defendant-appellant Prahlad Singh Satyapal in Second Appeal No. 1068 of 2001 is a licensee of Outhouse No. F-4 of Balrampur House(for short property in suit) @ Rs. 22/- per month as licence fee including the electricity and water charges as well as scavenging tax. The defendant is said to have fallen in arrears of licence fee worth Rs. 3146/-.
8. The defendant-appellant Dev Singh Bisht in Second Appeal No. 1071 of 2001 is a licensee of Outhouse No. D-4 of Balrampur House (for short property in suit) @ Rs. 22/- per month as licence fee including the electricity and water charges as well as scavenging tax. The defendant is said to have fallen in arrears of licence fee worth Rs. 3146/-.
9. The defendant-appellant Mohan Chandra Chaudhary in Second Appeal No. 1072 of 2001 is a licensee of Outhouse No. G-6 of Balrampur House (for short property in suit) @ Rs. 22/- per month as licence fee including the electricity and water charges as well as scavenging tax. The defendant is said to have fallen in arrears of licence fee worth Rs. 3146/-.
10. The defendant-appellant Pooran Chandra Pandey in Second Appeal No. 1073 of 2001 is a licensee of Room No. G-5 of Balrampur House (for short property in suit) @ Rs. 40/- per month as licence fee including the electricity and water charges as well as scavenging tax. The defendant is said to have fallen in arrears of licence fee worth Rs. 1560/-.
11. The defendant-appellant Prem Singh Negi in Second Appeal No. 1074 of 2001 is a licensee of Outhouse Nos. G-12 and G-13 of Balrampur House (for short property in suit) @ Rs. 100/- per month as licence fee including the electricity and water charges as well as scavenging tax.
12. The defendant-appellant Ram Chandra K
