Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
R. C. LAHOTI
GANGARAM - Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL COUNSEL, NAGAR PALIKA, NEEMUCH - Respondents
S. A. 277 Of 1972
Decided On : 02/28/1992
ESTOPPEL - TENANT AND LICENSEE - LEASE - RECOVERY OF RENT - APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER VIII OF M. P. MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1961 - INTERPRETATION OF 'RENT' - REPEAL AND SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, as lessees of gardens from Neemuch Municipality, filed suits seeking a declaration that they were pakka tenants and that recovery of rent from them was void. The Municipality claimed the right to lease out the gardens and recover rent under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiffs were estopped from challenging the Municipality's title to the gardens and its entitlement to recover rent under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The court interpreted 'rent' in Section 164(1)(c) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961, to include compensation for use and occupation by an ex-tenant after the expiry of the lease term. The court also held that Chapter VIII of the Act, relating to recovery of Municipal claims, was applicable to the recovery of rent, even if the bill was issued prior to the Act's commencement, due to the savings clause in Section 2 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs were estopped from challenging the Municipality's title to the gardens and its entitlement to recover rent. 2. Whether 'rent' in Section 164(1)(c) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961, included compensation for use and occupation by an ex-tenant after the expiry of the lease term. 3. Whether Chapter VIII of the Act was applicable to the recovery of rent, even if the bill was issued prior to the Act's commencement.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872, estops a tenant from denying the landlord's title during the continuance of the tenancy. This estoppel continues even after the expiry of the lease term, as long as the tenant remains in possession and has not surrendered it to the landlord. 2. The term 'rent' in Section 164(1)(c) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961, should be interpreted in its generic sense to include compensation for use and occupation by an ex-tenant after the expiry of the lease term. 3. The savings clause in Section 2 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961, preserves notices issued, proceedings undertaken, and actions taken under the repealed Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954, as long as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act. Therefore, Chapter VIII of the new Act, relating to recovery of Municipal claims, is applicable to the recovery of rent, even if the bill was issued prior to the Act's commencement.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, subject to observations regarding the rate of rent and the question of title.
( 1 ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of Second Appeal No. 25/74 (Smt. Seriubai v. Municipal Council, Neemuch) arising in similar facts and raising similar questions for decision. Facts relating to S. A. No. 277/72 :
( 2 ) S. A. No. 277/72 is by Gangaram S/o Bharaji resident of Neemuch, who having expired, his legal representatives have been brought on record. The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff was a pakka tenent of garden No. 12 situated within limits of Neemuch Municipality and that recovery of Rs. 4,384/- from the plaintiff was void, with consequent injunction restraining the recovery. According to the plaintiff though the land was held by him as a lessee of the Neemuch Municipality; but by operation of law he had become Bhumiswami; the land being in reality owned by the State, the Municipality having no right and title therein and hence any demand on account of rent payable under the lease at the instance of the Neemuch Municipality was null and void.
( 3 ) THE facts and documents brought on record go to show that on 1-6-1939 late Bharaji was having a lease for a period of 10 years commencing lst April 1939 and expiring 31/03/1949. The lease, Ex. P/46, shows that at that time Neemuch was a Cantonment and the lease was executed by the Resident for Central India on behalf of the Secretary for India in Council, on 14-9-1951 there was another lease, Ex. P/47 for a period of one year (1951-52) executed by the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Neemuch on behalf of Neemuch Cantonment Municipality in favour of late Bheraji. On 24-3-1956 there was a lease, Ex. D/1 for a period commencing 1-4-56 to 31-3-1957 in favour of the plaintiff Gangaram by the Neemuch Municipality u/ S. 53 of the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954. This appears to be the last lease. The rent fell in arrears for which demand notices were issued from time to time, which having not been complied with and the objections against the proposed recovery of lease rent having been rejected by the Municipality on 30-12-1961 vide notice, Ex. P/6, a bill, Ex. P/7, u/ S. 94 (1) of M. B. Municipalities Act, 1954, for a sum of Rs. 4,384/- was presented to the plaintiff. Facts relating to S. A. No. 25/74 :-
( 4 ) THE suit property in this case is Garden No. 6 and 6-A situated within the limits of Neemuch Municipality. The lease deeds in favour of plaintiff Mangilal are Ex. D/1 and D/2 dated 24-3-56 for the period 1-4-56 to 31-3-57 executed u/ S. 53 of Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954. Here also the plaintiff having defaulted in payment of rent a bill followed by notice of demand for an amount of Rs. 760/- on account of rent and Rs. 44. 19p. , on account of cost of recovery was issued to the plaintiff. In this case bill and notice of demand have not been placed on record. Defence and facts common in both the appeals :-
( 5 ) IN both the cases it is common ground that demand having not been satisfied, the Municipality Neemuch approached the Magistrate for affecting recovery. In both the suits both the plaintiffs have pleaded that the Municipality being not the real owner of the property, neither it was competent to lease out the lands nor was it authorised in law to recover the rent. It is also submitted that the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 came into force on 1st February 1962 and the provisions contained in Chapter VIII relating to recovery of Municipal claims were inapplicable to such demands as they had not arisen under this Act but were outstanding under the previous Act which had stood repealed.
( 6 ) ALL the material pleas raised were denied on behalf of the Municipality Neemuch in both the suits. It was submitted that the Municipality way competent to make a lease and also competent to make the impugned recovery through the agency of the Magistrate.
( 7 ) ALL the contentions raised by the two plaintiffs having been negatived by the Courts below, both of them have come up in second appeals to this Cour
AI
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
