SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(UK) 664

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Gopal Krishan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2166 of 2011
Decided On : 09-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Siddhartha Singh.
For the State of Uttarakhand : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel.

The creation of tenancy rights must comply with the lease terms under the Government Grants Act.

Headnote:

Government Grants Act - Lease - Section 3 - U.P. Amendment - Clause (vi)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner claimed tenancy rights over a property leased under the Government Grants Act. The court analyzed the lease provisions, the petitioner's rent agreement, and the notice issued under the Public Premises Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's rent agreement was in violation of the lease terms under the Government Grants Act, and the notice issued under the Public Premises Act was appropriate.

Issues: Interpretation of lease provisions, validity of rent agreement, and appropriateness of the notice under the Public Premises Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The creation of tenancy rights must comply with the lease terms under the Government Grants Act, and the notice under the Public Premises Act should appropriately describe the property for eviction.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed due to lack of merit.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

To begin with, its apt to deal with the basic provisions of law, under which, the property, which was leased out to one Mr. Bhupender Kumar, was said to have been let out by the petitioner under the terms of the rent deed, which was subsequently brought on record on the direction of this Court.

2. The Government Grants Act 1895, provides with, that the leases, which are granted and covered by the provisions of the Government Grants Act, would be exclusively covered by Section 3, which is to be read with the U.P. Amendment provided therein, which specifically in its terms denotes, that the rights and claims between the lessee or the lessor or anyone claiming through lessee, would be governed by the tenor of the lease itself, as provided by the U.P. Amendment, which is extracted hereunder :-

    “(3) Certain leases made by or on behalf of the Government to take effect according to their tenor. - All provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations contained in any such creation, conferment or grant referred to in Section 2, shall be valid and take effect according to their tenor, any decree or direction of a Court of law or any rule of law, statute or enactment of the Legislature, to the contrary notwithstanding :

Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent, or deemed ever to have prevented the effect of any enactment relating to the acquisition of property, land reforms or the imposition of ceiling on agricultural lands.”

3. The U.P. Amendment, which has been brought about under the Government Grants Act, it clearly specifies, that the grants made under the Act, in favour of a lessee, any right created, conferred or granted, whether under the terms of the lease or in violation to it, would be governed by the provisions of the lease itself.

4. In the instant case, a lease under the Government Grants Act, was executed in favour of one Mr. Bhupender Kumar of Village Jaunk, Patti Udaipur Talla, Tehsil Kotdwar, District Pauri Gahrwal.

5. The said lease, as it was executed on 21st November, 1994, was for building and other purposes, which could be utilized for commercial and industrial purposes too, and its tenure was to continue for a period of 30 years. Being a lease under the Government Grants Act, it related to the plot, which was mentioned in Clause-1 of the lease, the details of which was given in para 2.

6. But that may not be relevant at this stage, as it would be dealt with, when this Court deals with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. As observed, that the leases under the Government Grants Act, are governed by Section 3, Clause (vi) of the lease becomes relevant to be considered. Clause (vi) is extracted hereunder :-

    “(vi) The lessee will give up assignment of the said prints as by demised or any part thereof within one calendar month thereafter deliver a notice of such assignment to the commissioner setting forth in the names and description of the parties to every such assignment and the particulars and effect thereof.”

8. As per Clause (vi), the lessee to whom the land has been assigned under the provisions of Government Grants Act, if any assignment is made to any third person, it could only be with a prior permission of the Commissioner, giving the name and description of the parties, to whom the assignment is to be made.

9. The petitioner contends, that a rent agreement which was executed in his favour by one Mr. Bhupender Kumar, was allegedly in relation to the Grant No.27 of 1993-94 of plot No.1002, having an area of 0.080 hectares. If this description of property is taken into consideration, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the tenement shop was constructed on the part of the lease property, is absolutely contrary to the two documents as placed by him on record, because the property, which has been measured and described under the lease, is having an area of 0.008 hectares and that which was being let to him by one Mr. Bhupender Kum

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top