MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
Swapna Das - Appellant
Versus
Chief Executive Officer - Respondent
WP(C) Nos. 200, 201 and 202/2010
Decided On : 01-07-2014
Municipal Property - Lease Agreement - Meghalaya Municipal Act, 1973, Section 62
Fact of the Case:
The case involved three writ petitions concerning lease agreements between the petitioners and the Shillong Municipal Board (SMB) for occupying stalls within the Municipal Compound at Jail Road, Shillong. The SMB issued a notice to the petitioners requesting them to vacate the stalls for development purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the agreements between the parties were not lease deeds but licenses. The petitioners were not entitled to statutory tenant protection under the Meghalaya Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, as they were only licensees and were not paying the license fees.
Issues: The main issue before the court was whether the agreements between the parties constituted lease or license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Indian Easements Act, 1882, to determine the nature of the agreements. It emphasized that the crucial test for distinguishing between a lease and a license is whether the party gets exclusive possession of the property.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to hand over the possession of the stalls to the SMB within a reasonable time.
Judgment
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. These three writ petitions involving the similar facts and laws seeking similar prayer were taken up for joint hearing for disposal by a common judgment and order. Accordingly, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. Heard Mr. LR Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. ND Chullai, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. KP Bhattachrjee, learned GA appearing for the respondent No. 2. Also heard Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
3. The facts of the case in the three writ petitions are similar except that writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 201/2010 Smti. Jyoti Debnath is the wife of (L) Sailendra Ch. Debnath with whom the Shillong Municipal Board (for short 'SMB') entered into an agreement dated 07.01.1991 for allowing to occupy the Stall No. 282 measuring 10'x9'=90 sq.ft. over the existing stalls i.e. 1st floor within the Municipal Compound at Jail Road, Shillong and also that the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 200/2010 stated that Stall No. 240 at Jail Road, Shillong was allowed to occupy on transfer after she purchased the right over the said Stall No. 240 from one Shri. Sukanta Chkraborty and entered into an agreement dated 05.05.1993 with the SMB. The plot of land i.e. Stall No. 240 measuring 7'x22'=154 Sq.ft. in WP(C) No. 200/2010 situated at Jail Road, Shillong, Stall No. 282 measuring 10'x9'=90 Sq.ft. in WP(C) No. 201/2010 situated at Jail Road, Shillong and Stall No. 280 measuring 10'x15'=150 Sq.ft. in WP(C) No. 202/2010 situated at Jail Road, Shillong are the land vested in the SMB. Under Section 62 of the "Meghalaya Municipal Act, 1973" (for short "the Municipal Act, 1973') the Municipal property includes property of whatever nature or kind which may become vested in the Board, be under its direction, management and control. Section 62 of the Municipal Act, 1973 reads as follows:-
Municipal Property
62. Municipal property-(1) Subject to any reservation made by the State Government all property of the nature hereinafter in this section specified and situated within the municipality shall vest in and belong to the Board and shall, with all property of whatever nature or kind which may become vested in the Board, be under its direction, management and control, that is to say -
(a) all public roads including the soil, the pavements, stones and other materials thereof and all drains, bridges, trees, erection materials, implements and other things provided for such roads;
(b) all public streams, channels, water-courses, springs tanks, reservoirs, cisterns, wells, aqueducts, conduits, tunnels, pipes, pumps and other water-works whether made laid are created at the cost of the Board or otherwise and bridges, buildings, engines, works, materials and things connected therewith or appertaining thereto and also any adjacent land, not being private property, appertaining to any public tanks;
Provided that water-pipes and any water-works connected therewith or appertaining thereto which with the consent of the Board are laid or set up in any street by the owners of any mill, factory, workshop or the like primarily for the use of their employees shall not be deemed to be public water-works by reason of their use by the public;
(c) all public sewers and drains, all works materials and things appertaining thereto and other conservancy works;
(d) all sewage, rubbish and offensive matter collected by the Board from roads, latrines, sewers, cess-pools and other places;
(e) all public lamps, lamps-posts and apparatus connected therewith or appertaining thereto and all public gates, markets, slaughter houses and public buildings of every description which have been constructed or are maintained out of the municipal fund;
(f) all land or other property transferred to the Board by the Government or acquired (by the Board) by gift, purchase or otherwise for local public purposes.
(2) The State Government
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.