Back
(HIGH COURT)
Rohit Arya, J.
Rakesh Jain v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petitions No. 22644 of 2017, 22645 of 2017 and 22948 of 2017 (Indore); Decided on 23.4.2019.
¼1½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 & /kkjk 105] 111¼d½ rFkk 116 & iêk vfr/kkj.k vkSj vuuqKkr vfHk/kkjh & ls vfHkizsr & iês dh vof/k ds i;Zolku ds i'pkr~ iêkdrkZ dh lgefr ds fcuk vfHk/kkjh dk dCtk jgs rks & og vuuqKkr vfHk/kkjh gS vkSj csn[kyh ;ksX; gS & fdarq ;fn vfHk/kkjh dk dCtk lgefr ls cuk jgrk gS] pkgs HkkVd Lohdkj fd;k x;k gks ;k ugha] rks og rRizfrdwy djkj ds v/;/khu] vfr/kkj.k vfHk/kkjh gS & ;fn iês dh vof/k uohdj.k [kaM ds lkFk gS rks Lor% uohdj.k ugha gksxk & fdarq ;g uohdj.k [kaM ds vuqlkj uohdj.k ds fy, ldkjkRed ÑR; ds v/;/khu gksxkA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr% ;g fujkin fu"df"kZr fd;k tk ldrk gS fd iês dh vof/k ds volku lekfIr ds i'pkr~ ;fn iêkdrkZ dh lgefr ds fcuk vfHk/kkjh dk dCtk cuk jgrk gS rks og vuuqKkr vfHk/kkjh gS vkSj csn[kyh ;ksX; gSA rFkkfi ;fn iêkdrkZ dh lgefr ls vfHk/kkjh dk dCtk cuk jgrk gS rkss og vfr/kkj.k vfHk/kkjh gSA ,slh lgefr ifjHkkf"kr gksuk pkfg,] ftlls bafxr gS fd iês dh vof/k ds volku ds i'pkr~ iêsnkj dk laifÙk ij dCtk cus jgus esa uohu iêk ysus dk izLrko izekf.kr gksrk gS vkSj nwljh vksj] Hkw&Lokeh }kjk HkkVd Lohdkj djus vFkok vU;Fkk ls vfHkO;ä dCtk cus jgus nsus dh lqfuf'pr lgefr gS rFkkfi rRizfrdwy djkj ds v/;/khuA
vU; 'kCnksa esa] ;fn iês ds djkj esa iêk dh vof/k fu;r djus dk [kaM uohdj.k [kaM ds lkFk gS rks iêk Lor% uohÑr ugha gksxk] vfirq uohdj.k [kaM ds vuqlkj uohdj.k ds fy, ldkjkRed ÑR; ds v/;/khu gksxk , vkb vkj 1934 dy- 135] , vkb vkj ¼36½ 1949 ,Q lh 124] , vkb vkj 1961 ,l lh 1067] , vkb vkj 1972 ,l lh 819] , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 508 rFkk , vkb vkj 2005 ,l lh 2905 fufnZ"VA
¼2½ Ñf"k mit eaMh ¼Hkwfe vkSj lajpuk vkcaVu½ fu;e] 2009 ¼e-ç-½ & fu- 2¼t½] 3¼3½] 18¼5½ rFkk 20¼nks½ & e-iz- Ñf"k mit eaMh ¼eaMh lfefr@eaMy dh Hkwfe vkSj lajpuk vkcaVu½ fu;e] 2005 & fu- 9¼4½ & e-iz- Ñf"k mit eaMh vfèkfu;e] 1972 & /kkjk 7¼2½] f}rh; ijarqd & 2009 ds fu;eksa ds v/khu iêk & uohdj.k dh gdnkjh & dSaVhu dk iêk rhu o"kZ ds fy, iznku fd;k x;k & ,d o"kZ ds fy, c<+k;k x;k ^lajpuk* esa ^dSaVhu* lfEefyr gS & ewy iêk djkj esa uohdj.k [kaM varfoZ"V & iêk uohdj.k ds fo"k; esa izca/k funs'kd dk ifji=@funs'k & ;kphx.k 2005 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 9¼4½ ds v/khu iês ds uohdj.k ds gd~nkj gSa & eaMh lfefr 1972 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7¼2½ ds f}rh; ijarqd ds vuqlkj mi;qZä funs'k ds vuqikyu ds fy, dkuwuh :i ls vkc) gSaA¼iSjk 10 ls 12
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 14 rFkk 19¼1½¼N½ & e-iz- Ñf"k mit eaMh ¼Hkwfe vkSj lajpuk vkcaVu½ fu;e] 2009 & fu- 2¼t½] 3¼3½] 18¼5½ rFkk 20¼nks½ & 2009 ds fu;eksa ds v/khu dSaVhu dk iêk & lajpuk ;k Hkou ds iês ds uohdj.k ds fo"k; esa izca/k funs'kd dk ifji=@funs'k & lajpuk ;k Hkou esa nqdku rFkk dSaVhu lfEefyr gS & mi;qZä funs'k ds vk/kkj ij 32 lajpukvksa ds iêksa dk uohdj.k fd;k x;k & fdarq iês ds uohdj.k ds fy, ;kphx.k ds vkosnu [kkfjt fd, x, & izR;FkhZ Ø- 3 us foosdkf/kdkj dk rRo fufoZfgr dj fn;k & foosd dk iz;ksx lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 rFkk 19¼N½ dh dlkSVh ij fd;k tkuk pkfg, & uohdj.k ds ekeyk esa izR;FkhZ Ø- 3 }kjk bldk vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk visf{kr Fkk & ekeyk iqufoZpkj ds fy, izfrizsf"kr fd;k x;kA ¼2018½ 12 ,l lh lh 756 rFkk 1999 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 189 ¼,l lh½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 12 ls 14
¼4½ vf/kdkfjrk & dk iz;ksx & ;fn dkuwuh mica/k ds v/khu dksbZ dk;Z fof'k"V jhfr esa fd;k tkuk gS & ogh mlh jhfr esa fd;k tkuk gksrk gS vkSj vU;Fkk ughaA , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 358 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 13
(1) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- Ss. 105, 111(a) and 116 -- lease holding over and tenant at sufferance -- meaning -- after determination of term of lease, tenant remains in possession without consent of lessor -- he is tenant at sufferance and liable for eviction -- but if tenant continues in possession with consent, acceptance of rent or otherwise, he is tenant holding over subject to contrary agreement -- if term of lease is with renewal clause, there is no automatic renewal -- but it is subject to positive act for renewal in terms of renewal clause.
Held: It can safely be concluded that after expiration/determination of the terms of lease, if the tenant remains in posse-ssion without consent of the lessor, he is a tenant at sufferance and is liable for eviction. However, if the tenant continues to be in possession with the consent of the lessor, he is a tenant holding over. Such consent should be defined suggesting that there is an offer of taking new lease evidenced by lessee remaining in possession of the property after his term was over and on other side, a definite consent to the continuance of possession by the landlord expressed by acceptance of rent or otherwise. Of course, subject to the agreement to the contrary.
In other words, if the lease agreement bears a clause for fixation of term of lease with renewal clause, there is no automatic renewal of the lease, instead is subject to the positive act for renewal in terms of the renewal clause. AIR 1934 Cal. 135, AIR (36) 1949 FC 124, AIR 1961 SC 1067, AIR 1972 SC 819, AIR 1973 SC 508 and 2005 AIR SC 2905 referred to.
(2) Krishi Upaj Mandi (Allotment of Land and Structures) Rules, 2009 (M.P.) -- Rr. 2(h), 3(3), 18(5) and 20 (ii) -- M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi (Allotment of Land and Structures of Market Committee/Board) Rules, 2005 -- R. 9(4) -- M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 -- S. 7(2), Second Proviso -- lease under Rules of 2009 -- entitlement of renewal -- lease of canteen granted for three years -- extended for one year -- 'structures' include 'canteen' -- original lease agreement contains renewal clause -- circular/direction of Managing Director about renewal of lease -- petitioners are entitled for renewal of lease under rule 9(4) of Rules of 2005 -- market committee is statutorily obliged to comply aforesaid direction in terms of section 7(2), second proviso of Act of 1972. [Paras 10 to 12
(3) Constitution of India -- Arts. 14 and 19(1) (g) -- M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi (Allotment of Land and Structures) Rules, 2009 -- Rr. 2(h), 3(3), 18(5) and 20 (ii) -- lease of canteen under the Rules of 2009 -- circular/direction of Managing Director about renewal of lease of structures or building -- structures or building inclusive of shop and canteen -- lease of 32 structures renewed on aforesaid direction -- but applications of petitioners for renewal of lease rejected -- respondent No. 3 divested the element of discretion -- exercise of discretion must be on touchstone of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of constitution -- respondent No. 3 is required to adhere to same in matter of renewal of lease -- matter remanded for reconsideration. (2018) 12 SCC 756 and 1999(1) JLJ 189 (SC) referred to. [Paras 12 to 14
(4) Jurisdiction -- exercise of -- if any act is to be done in particular manner under statutory provision -- same has to be done in that manner and not otherwise. AIR 1964 SC 358 followed. [Para 13
ORDER
1. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the have been heard analogously and disposed of by this singular order.
For the sake of convenience, facts in Writ Petition No. 22644 of 2017 have been dealt with.
Pursuant to the notice inviting tender dated 29.3.2006 (Annexure P-2) by respondent No. 3, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Indore for allotment of shop to run canteen situated in their premises, petitioner had also participated and submitted his bid. The bid was accepted vide letter dated 15.6.2006 (Annexure P-3) as he was the highest bidder. A lease deed was executed on 8.1.2007 (Annexure P-4). Clause 9 provides for renewal thereof and the same is quoted below:
9- ;g fd] fdjk,nkjh dh vof/k vkf/kiR; dh fnukad ls rhu o"kZ ds fy;s jgsXkh] ftlesa o`f) ifjofrZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vuqlkj fdjk, dh nj dk iqufoZyksdu djrs gq, izpfyr 'krkZuqlkj Ñf"k mit eaMh lfefr vkoaVu fu;e 2005 vuqlkj fd;k tk ldsxkA
As per terms and conditions thereof, initially the lease deed was executed for a period of three years.
It was further extended by respondent No. 3 for one year vide letter dated 6.10.2009. Petitioner before expiry of lease period had applied for renewal of the lease deed. However, respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 2.6.2010 (Annexure P-5) without consideration passed an order calling upo the petitioner to handover vacant possession of the canteen to respondent No. 3 after expiry of extended period, i.e., from 1.7.2009 to 30.6.2010, on 10% increase of annual lease rent.
Against order dated 2.6.2010, the petitioner had preferred W.P. No. 7346/2010 and a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of it on 9.6.2010 with protection against dispossession relegated the petitioner to prosecute the appeal already filed before the Managing Director. The relevant portion of the order reads as under :
“Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already approached to the Managing Director by filing an appeal we deem it proper to dispose of this petition directing the first respondent Managing Director, M.P. Marketing Board, Bhopal to consider and decide the petitioner’s appeal on merits on or before 9.7.2010.
Till the petitioner’s appeal is decided by the first respondent, the second respondent shall not take possession of the canteen in question from the petitioner in pursuance to the letter dated 2.6.2010 (Annexure P-7) and shall not create any third party rights on the canteen in question.”
The appellate authority vide order dated 9.7.2010 (Annexure P-10) in turn remanded the matter back to the respondent No. 3 for consideration of the application for renewal of the lease deed in accordance with law.
The respondent No.3 upon reconsideration has dismissed the application on 3.8.2010 (Annexure P-11).
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 19 of the M.P.Krishi Upaj Mandi (Allotment of Land and Structure) Rules, 2010 before the Managing Director.
The appeal was dismissed on 5.10.2015 (Annexure P-21) relying upon clause (14) of the letter/circular of the Managing Director dated 26.12.2008. For ready reference clause (14) is quoted below :
^¼14½ fdlh Hkh izdkj ds fookn dks fuiVkus dk vf/kdkj e.Mh lfefr dks jgsxk tks Bsdsnkj ij ca/kudkjh gksxsaA
The appellate authority was of the view that under the aforesaid letter/circular of the authority, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti was the sole authority to deal with and decide the cases for renewal of lease. Hence, the order dated 3.8.2010 refusing to renew the lease did not merit consideration. Consequently, appeal was dismissed.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 7570/2015 and the same was disposed of by a coordinate Bench alog with bunch of writ petitions lead case being W.P. No. 7374/2015 (Lokesh s/o Omprakash Patel v. Krishi Upaj Mandi samaiti, Indore and others) decided on 21.2.2017 relegating the petitioners therein to avail the alternate remedy of revision under
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
