2005 Supreme(MP) 390
2005(2) JLJ 93
A.K. Shrivastava, J.
Bhagchand v. Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Indore and others
Second Appeal No. 385 of 1990; Decided on 18.3.2005.
S.R. Saraf for appellant; Anand Agrawal for respondent No.1;
M.G. Upadhyaya for respondent No.2.
Headnote:(1) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 --S. 105 -- Easements Act, 1882 -- S. 52-- ‘lease‘ and ‘licence‘ as defined -- use of word in document--is not decisive n intention of parties to be gathered from words used in document itself--if interest in property along with possession is created, it is lease -- else it is licence -- for a lease there must be power and intention to hold property to the exclusion of grantor.
According to the plaintiff, he is in possession of a shop situated in a gumti for several years. Defendant No. 1 gave plot No.6 to defendant No.2 on lease so that defendant No.2 may construct a gumti and may open the Cooperative Store of Municipal Employees Union. Thereafter defendant No. 2 constructed the gumti on the said land. Defendant No. 2 did not open the Cooperative Store and the said gumti remained vacant up to the year 1961. At the relevant point of time, the President of Union (defendant No.2) was Narain Singh who in December, 1961 inducted plaintiff as sub-tenant at the rate of Rs. 35/- rent per month apart from payment of the tax. The plaintiff thereafter started carrying on business of public typing and drafting institute in the said gumti and the possession of the said gumti remained with him.
Defendant No. 1 sent notice to defendant No. 2 terminating the tenancy and the said notice was served on defendant No.2 on 11.5.1966. The said notice terminating the lease was sent on the ground that defendant No. 2 had inducted plaintiff as sub-tenant in the said gumti. The plaintiff against the said notice of defendant No.1 filed an appeal (Appeal No. 441/66), before the appellate Committee which was dismissed on 25.8.1969.
However, after the dismissal of the appeal, defendant No.1 did not take any action against defendant No.2.
Defendant No.1 framed a scheme to construct the pacca shops and according to the scheme the persons who were possessing the gumti on the M.G. Road, it was decided to allot the shops to them and the shops will not be allotted to those persons were not possessing the gumtis. Accordingly the plaintiff, since he was possessing gumti, submitted application for the allotment of the shop. [Paras 2 to 4
The Municipal Corporation, instead of giving the shop to the plaintiff, directed to allot the shop to defendant No.2. [Para 5
The trial Court, after framing issues and recording the evidence, declared that plaintiff is entitled to get allotted shop No. 35/555 in his name and is also entitled to obtain possession of the said shop from the defendants. The trial Court further declared that the suit shop No. 35/555 which has been allotted by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 by allotment order No. 243 dated 3.6.1971, is illegal and contrary to law, the trial Court further decreed the suit of mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to execute the lease deed in favour of plaintiff by obtaining vacant possession of suit shop from defendant No.2.
Both the defendants preferred separate appeals against the impugned judgment and decree, decreeing the suit of plaintiff. But the appellate Court by common judgment allowed both the appeals and dismissed the suit of plaintiff, hence this second appeal. This second appeal was admitted on 16.1.1991 on the following substantial questions of law:
"1. Whether the inference that Ex. P-l is a licence in the facts and circumstances of the case, is correct?
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to get the allotment of the pucca shop under policy and resolution of respondent No.1, the appellant being in de facto possession of the gumti? [Paras 7 to 9
Held: Though it has been mentioned in the document that it is being given on licence. However, merely the word "licence" is used in the document would not be enough in order to hold that the document is a licence. Indeed the contents and fashion in which it is written is to be seen. Whether an instrument operates as a lease or as a license is a matter not of words but of substance. There have been large number of decisions on this question. The decisive consideration is the intention of the parties, but the intention must be gathered on a true consideration of the agreement and not merely from the description given by the parties. The mere use of words appropriate to a license will not preclude it is being held to be a lease and vice versa. The determining factor is that whether in fact the interest is created in the property along with the possession. If it does, then it is a lease. If it only gives the use of the property in a particular way on certain terms while it remains in the possession and control of the owner, it will only be a license. In other words for a lease, there must be a power and intention to hold the property to the exclusion of the "grantor". AIR 1965 SC 610, AIR 1959 SC 1262 and 1970 MPLJ 69 (SC) followed. [Paras 14 & 15
(2) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S. 106 -- M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 -- S. 403 -- quit notice given to tenant under S. 106 of 1882 Act on the ground of sub-letting the premises to plaintiff -- appeal of plaintiff under S. 403 of 1956 Act also dismissed on same ground -- possession of plaintiff admitted. MP No. 963/1990 relied on. [Paras 17 & 24
(3) Appeal -- one trial, one finding and one decision n there need not be two appeals even though two decrees may have been drawn up. AIR 1953 SC 419 followed. [Para 12
(4) Appeal --one suit -- two separate first appeals filed by two sets of defendants -- two separate decrees drawn dismissing suit of plaintiff -- plaintiff need not file two appeals. AIR 1932 Mad. 689 and AIR 1968 Ker. 154 relied on. [Para 13
(5) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M.P.)-- S. 25 -- resolution of committee accepted by Mayor exercising statutory powers- cannot be superseded by administrative order of Administrator. [Para 20
(6) Civil P.C., 1908--S. 11 and O. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 -- order on application for temporary injunction -- does not operate as res judicata -- only final verdict determining issues in suit operates as such between the parties. AIR 1964 SC 993 followed. [Para 23
¼1½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882& &/kkjk 105& &lq[kkpkj vf/kfu;e] 1882& &/kkjk 52& &;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr ^^iV~Vk** vkSj ^^vuqKfIr**& &nLrkost esa ç;qDr ‘‘kCn& &fu.kkZd ugha&Loa nLrkost esa ç;qDr ‘‘kCnksa ls i{kdkjksa dk vk‘k; dk fu"d"kZ fudkyk tkuk pkfg,&;fn dCts ds lkFk laifÙk esa fgr l`‘V gksrk gS] og iV~Vk gS& &vUFkk og vuqKfIr gS& iV~Vs ds fy,] çnkrk dk viotZu djrs gq, laifÙk ds /kkj.k ds fy, ‘kfDr vkSj vk‘k; vo‘; gksuk pkfg,A
oknh ds vuqlkj] xqeVh esa vofLFkr ,d nqdku ij mldk vusd o"kZ ls dCtk gSA çfroknh Ø- 1 us IykV Ø-6] çfroknh Ø-2 dks iV~Vs ij fn;k fd çfroknh Ø-2 xqeVh dk fuekZ.k dj lds vkSj E;qfufliy deZpkjh ;wfu;u dk lgdkjh HkaMkj [kksy ldsA rRi‘pkr çfroknh Ø-2 us mDr Hkwfe ij xqeVh dk fuekZ.k dj fy;kA çfroknh Ø-2 us lgdkjh HkaMkj ugha [kksyk vkSj mDr xqeVh o"kZ 1961 rd [kkyh jghA lqlaxr le; fcanq ij ;wfu;u dk v/;{k ¼çfroknh Ø-2½ ukjk;.kflag Fkk ftlus fnlacj 1961 esa oknh dks djksa ds lank; ds vfrfjDr] #- 35@& HkkM+k çfrekl dh nj ls mi&vfHk/kkjh ds :i esa fcBk fn;kA oknh us rRi‘pkr~ mDr xqeVh esa tulk/kkj.k ds fy, Vkbfiax vkSj Mªkf¶Vax bULVhV~;wV dk dkjckj pykuk çkjaHk dj fn;k vkSj mDr xqeVh dk dCtk mlds ikl jgkA
çfroknh Ø-1 us çfroknh Ø-2 dks vfHk/k`fr ds lekiu dh lwpuk Hksth vkSj mDr lwpuk dh çfroknh Ø-2 ij 11-5-1996 dks rkehy gqbZA iV~Vk lekfIr dh mDr lwpuk bl vk/kkj ij Hksth xbZ Fkh fd çfroknh Ø-2 us mDr xqeVh esa oknh dks mi&vfHk/kkjh ds :i esa cSBk fn;k FkkA çfroknh Ø-2 us mDr xqeVh esa oknh dks mi&vfHk/kkjh ds :i esa cSBk fn;k FkkA çfroknh Ø-1 dh mDr lwpuk ds fo#) oknh us vihy lfefr ds le{k vihy ¼vihy Ø-441@66½ Qkby dh tks 25-8-1969 dks [kkfjt dj nh xbZA rFkkfi] vihy dh [kkfjth ds i‘pkr çfroknh Ø-1 us çfroknh Ø-2 ds fo#) dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dhA
çfroknh Ø-1 us iDdh nqdkus fufeZr dh tkus dh ,d ;kstuk cukbZ vkSj ml ;kstuk ds vuqlkj] ,e-th-jksM ij ftud dCts esa xqeVh Fkh] mudks nqdkusa vkcafVr fd, tkus dk fu.kZ; fd;k x;k vkSj nqdkusa mu O;fDr;ksa dks vkcafVr ugha dh tk,¡xh] xqefV;k¡ ftuds dCts esa ugha FkhA oknh ds vuqlkj] D;ksafd xqeVh mlds dCts esa Fkh] mlus nqdku ds vkcaVu ds fy, vkosnu çLrqr fd;kA ¼iSjk 2 ls 4½
uxjikfyd fuxe us nqdku oknh dks nsus ds ctk; çfroknh Ø-2 dk nqdku vkcafVr fd, tkus dk funsZ‘k fn;kA ¼iSjk 5½
fopkj.k U;k;ky; us fook|d fojfpr djus vkSj lk{; vfHkfyf[kr djus ds i‘pkr ?kks"k.kk dh fd oknh nqdku Ø-35@555 vius uke ij vkcafVr fd, tkus dk gdnkj gS vkSj çfroknhx.k ls nqdku dk dCtk çkIr djus dk gdnkj gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ;g ?kks"k.kk vkSj dh fd vkns‘k Ø-243 fnukad 3-6-1971 ftlds }kjk çfroknh Ø-1 us oknxr nqdku Ø-35@555 çfroknh Ø-2 dks vkcafVr dh gS] vof/k vkSj fof/k ds foijhr gS( blds vfrfjDr fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vkKkid O;kns‘k dk okn çfroknh Ø- 1 dks ;g funs‘k nsrs gq, fMØh fd;k fd og oknxr nqdku dk dCtk çfroknh Ø-2 ls [kkyh dCtk çkIr dj oknh ds i{k esa iV~Vk foys[k fu"ikfnr djsA
nksuksa çfroknhx.k us vkf{kIr fu.kZ; vkSj fMØh ds fo#) ftlds }kjk oknh dk okn fMØh fd;k x;k Fkk] i`Fkd&i`Fkd vihysa dhA fdarq vihy U;k;ky; us mHk;fu‘B fu.kZ; }kjk nksuksa vihysa eatwj dh vkSj oknh dk okn [kkfjt dj fn;k] vr% ;g f}rh; vihy gSA
;g f}rh; vihy 16-1-1991 dks fuEukafdr fof/k ds lkjoku ç‘u ij xzg.k dh xbZ%
^^1- D;k ekeys ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g fu"d"kZ lgh gS fd çn‘kZ ih&1 vuqKfIr gS\
2- D;k vihykFkhZ] oLrqr% xqeVh ij mldk dCtk gksus ds dkj.k çfroknh Ø-1 dh uhfr vkSj ladYi ds v/khu iDdh nqdku ds vkcaVu dk gdnkj gS\** ¼iSjk 7 ls 9½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;|fi nLrkost esa ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd ;g vuqKfIr }kjk nh tk jgh gSA rFkkfi nLrkost esa ‘‘kCn ^^vuqKfIr** ç;qDr fd;k tkuk ek= ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd, tkus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha gS fd nLrkost vuqKfIr gSA okLro esa varoZLrq vkSj ftl <ax ls ;g fy[kk x;k gS] ml ij /;ku fn;k tkuk gksxkA dksbZ fy[kr iV~Vs ds :i esa çofrZr gksrh gS vFkok vuqKfIr ds :i esa] ;g fo"k; ‘‘kCnksa dk ugha] okLrfodrk dk gSA bl ç‘u ij vf/kd la[;k esa fu.kZ; gq, gSaA fu.kkZ;d fopkj i{kdkjksa dk vk‘k; gS] fdarq vk‘k; dk fu"d"kZ] djkj ij lgh fopkj dj ds fudkyk tkuk pkfg,] ek= i{kdkjksa }kjk fn, x, fooj.k ij ls ughaA vuqKkrs ds fy, leqfpr ‘‘kCn ds ç;ksx ek= ls mldk iV~Vk gksuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkuk vioftZr ugha gks tk,xk vkSj foi;Z;suA vo/kkjd dkjd ;g gS fd D;k okLro esa dCts ds lkFk laifÙk esa fgr l`‘V gksrk gSA ;fn gksrk gS] rc og iV~Vk gSA ;fn blds }kjk dsoy fof‘k‘V fuca/kuksa ij fdlh fof‘k‘V <ax ls laifÙk dk mi;ksx djus fn;k tkrk gS tcfd dCtk vkSj fu;a=.k Lokeh ds ikl jgrk gS] rc og dsoy vuqKfIr gksxhA vU; ‘‘kCnksa esa] iV~Vs ds fy,] ^^çnkrk** dk viotZu djrs gq, laifÙk /kkj.k djus dh ‘kfDr vkSj vk‘k; gksuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 610] , vkb vkj 1959 ,l lh 1262 rFkk 1970 ,e ih ,y ts 69¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15½
¼2½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882& &/kkjk 106& &e-ç- uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956& &/kkjk 403&vfHk/kkjh dks oknh dk ifjlj mi&HkkbZ ij fn, tkus ds vk/kkj ij vfHk/kkjh dks [kkyh djus dh lwpuk nh xbZ&oknh dh vihy Hkh 1956 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 403 ds v/khu mlh vk/kkj ij [kkfjt dh xbZ& &oknh dk dCtk Lohdkj fd;k x;kA çdh.kZ ;kfpdk Ø- 963@1990 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 17 ,oa 24½
¼3½ vihy&,d fopkj.k] ,d fu"d"kZ vkSj ,d fu.kZ;&nks vihysa vko‘;d ugha gS] Hkys gh nks fMfØ;ksa cukbZ xbZ gksaA , vkb vkj 1953 ,l lh 419 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 12½
¼4½ vihy& ,d okn&çfroknhx.k ds nks lewgksa }kjk nks i`Fkd&i`Fkd vihysa Qkby dh xbZ& &oknh dk okn [kkfjt djrs gq, nks i`Fkd&i`Fkd fMfØ;k¡ ikfjr dh xbZ& &oknh }kjk nks vihysa Qkby dh tkuk vko‘;d ughaA , vkb vkj 1932 enzkl 689 rFkk , vkb vkj 1968 dsjy 154 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 13½
¼5½ uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 25& &lfefr dk ladYi] egkikSj }kjk dkuwuh ‘kfDr;k¡ ç;qDr djrs gq, LohÑr&ç‘kkld }kjk ç‘kklfud vkns‘k }kjk vfrf‘Br ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 20½
¼6½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 11 rFkk vk- 39 fu-1 ,oa 2& &vLFkkh O;kns‘k ds fy, vkosnu ij vkns‘k&iwoZ fu.kZ; dh Hkk¡fr çofrZr ugha gksrk& &i{kdkjksa ds e/; dsoy okn esa fook|dksa dk vo/kkj.k djrs gq, vafre gh bl çdkj çofrZr gksrk gSA , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 993 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 23½
1. This second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff against the judgment of reversal passed by appellate Court dismissing his suit.
2. A suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and for possession has been filed by the plaintiff who is appellant here in this appeal. According to the plaintiff, he is in possession of a shop situated in a gumti for several years. Defendant No.1 gave plot No.6 to defendant No.2 on lease so that defendant No.2 may construct a gumti and may open the Cooperative Store of Municipal Employees Union. Thereafter defendant No.2 constructed the gumti on the said land. Defendant No. 2 did not open the Cooperative Store and the said gumti remained vacant up to the year 1961. At the relevant point of time, the President of Union (defendant No.2) was Narain Singh who in December, 1961 inducted plaintiff as sub-tenant at the rate of Rs. 35/- rent per month apart from payment of the tax. The plaintiff thereafter started carrying on business of public typing and drafting institute in the said gumti and the possession of the said gumti remained with him.
3. Defendant' No. 1 sent notice to defendant No.2 terminating the tenancy and the said notice, was served on defendant No.2 on 11.5.1966. The said notice terminating the lease was sent on the ground that defendant No.2 had inducted plaintiff as sub-tenant in the said gumti. The plaintiff against the said' notice of defendant No. 1 filed an appeal (Appeal No. 441/66), (before the appellate Committee which was dismissed on 25.8.1969. However, after the dismissal of the appeal, defendant No.1 did• not take any action against defendant No.2.
4. Defendant No. 1 framed a scheme to construct the pacca shops and \ according' 'to the scheme the persons who were possessing the gumti on the M.G. Road, it was decided to allot the shops to them and the shops will not be allotted to those persons were not possessing the gumtis. Accordingly the plaintiff, since he was possessing gumti, submitted application for the allotment of the shop and also deposited the requisite amount. It has also been pleaded by the plaintiff in para 8 of his plaint that the Municipal Corporation also gave shops to some other persons who were sub-tenant whose names are referred in this paragraph. According to him, since was also inducted as sub-tenant by defendant No.2, he is also' entitled for the allotment of the shop.
5. The Municipal Corporation, instead of giving the shop to the plaintiff, directed to allot the, shop to defendant-No.2. Initially the suit was filed for declaration, and• mandatory injunction, however, during the pendency of the suit since gumti was removed in order to widen the, M.G. Road, of Indore town, the plaintiff, thereafter by amendment' prayed, for the allotment of shop, the possession of which has been given to defendant No.2. The plaintiff also prayed decree of possession against defendants.
6. The defendants resisted the "suit by filing written statement. In nutshell it has been contended in the written statement that the plaintiff is not having any right, title and interest in the gumti in question since his possession was unauthorised and he was trespasser and, therefore, he is not entitled for the allotment of any shop nor he is entitled to the possession of the shop which has been allotted to defendant No.
2. It has been prayed that suit be dismissed.
7. The trial Court, after framing issues and recording the evidence, declared that plaintiff is entitled to get allotted shop No. 35/555 in his name and is also entitled to obtain possession of the said shop from the defendants. The trial Court further declared that the suit shop No. 35/555 which has been allotted by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 by allotment order No. 243 dated 3.6.1971, is illegal and contrary to law, the trial Court further decreed the suit of mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to execute the lease deed in favour of plaintiff by obtaining vacant possession of suit shop from defendan