JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
The Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (now Tata Steel Ltd.) – Appellant
versus
Punj and Sons (Private) Limited and Anr. – Respondents
S.A. No.67 of 1996 (R)
Decided on 13.6.2024
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106—Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950—Section 7-E—Termination of tenancy—Suit seeking decree for Khas possession of land—Once relationship of lessor and lessee is established defendant or subsequent purchaser cannot question title of original lessor—There is concurrent finding of both courts below regarding service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, and there has been default of payment in rent and continued in possession of suit land—Without any evidence of lease by State in favour of Respondent or original respondent an inference cannot be drawn that it had become a lessee of State and not of plaintiff/appellant—First Appellate Court completely misconstrued law while allowing first appeal in favour of defendant/respondent—Judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court set aside and that of Trial Court restored. (Paras 22, 27 and 28)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Appellant is plaintiff and this appeal has been preferred against the judgment of reversal passed in Title Appeal No. 12 of 2007.
Case of the Plaintiff
2. Plaintiff company filed the suit for a decree for khas possession of land measuring 3.544 acre described in Schedule A of the plaint.
3. Plaintiff company is the proprietor and owner of the land in dispute and defendant respondent is a monthly tenant on a rental of Rs.318.96 per month under the plaintiff/appellant company. As agreed between the parties, the tenancy was extended up to 31.12.1969.
4. The suit land vested in the State of Bihar Act-5 of 1972. However, by deed of lease dated 01.08.1985 State of Bihar leased out the lands including the suit land to the plaintiff/appellant.
5. Notice was sent to the defendant/respondent to vacate the land by 31.12.1970 as the land in suit was required by the company and because also the defendant/respondent had also defaulted in paying the rent to the tune of Rs.5103.36.
Case of the Defendant
6. It is admitted that defendant was inducted on lease in respect of the suit land commencing from 18.12.1958 on year to year basis. It is however denied that extension of the tenancy up-to 31.12.1969.
7. The lease was in pursuance to an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant to set up a plant for manufacturing mineral wood from the slag which is a by product generated by the steel manufacturing unit of the plaintiff’s company. In order to install manufacturing plant, heavy investment was made by defendant and, therefore, the tenancy was not terminable. It is also asserted that the suit land was not leased out by the appellant company.
8. The learned Sub-Ordinate Judge framed following main issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:
I. Has the defendant validly served with the notice determining its tenancy as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act?
II. Has the defendant defaulted in making payment of rent of the suit land from month of September, 1969?
III. Is the defendant in arrears of rent for a sum of Rs 5103.36 paise? Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for Rs5103.36 paise? Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for compensation for Rs 63.78?
IV. Is the plaintiff entitled to get khas possession of the suit land leaving the ground clear of all obstructions and debris by evicting the defendants therefrom?
9. Learned trial Court decreed the suit by recording a finding in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to all the issues. Trial Court held that notice (Ext-1) for vacating the scheduled land was duly served on the defendant. The notice stated that defendant was on monthly tenancy from 18.12.1958 and the lease was extended from time to time and ultimately extended up to 31.12.1969.
10. With regard to the plea of the defendant that land got vested in the State by operation of State of Bihar Act-5 of 1972, it was held that post such vesting the lease deed was executed by the State of Bihar on 06.08.1985(Ext-6) and the suit land included the land for which the lease was renewed by the State. It held that plaintiff company was competent to file the present suit of eviction of the defendant company and take khas possession of the suit land. Status of defendant company with respect to the suit land vis-a-vis the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit land had not undergone any change, for clause XXV of Exhibit 6had no application in the present case.
11. On appeal by defendant/respondent, the 1st Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur formulated two point for determination of the said appeal:
I. Whether the defendant was inducted as a month to month tenant or it was year to year lease and whether any valid notice under Section 106 T.P Act was served.
II. Whether Exhibit 6, the registered deed of lease executed by the State of Bihar does or does not garb the plaintiff with the status of lessee under the State of Bihar with respect to the suit land entitling it to seek evicti
Termination of tenancy – Once relationship of lessor and lessee is established defendant or subsequent purchaser cannot question title of original lessor.
The tenant cannot question the title of the lessor during tenancy, and the lessor retains rights despite changes in property status under the Bihar Land Reforms Act.
The court affirmed the plaintiff's title to land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, rejecting the defendants' adverse possession claims and validating the lease agreements under the Transfer of....
In eviction suits, admitted landlord-tenant relationship estops tenant from denying title; landlord needs only prove relationship and grounds, not ownership. Open land leases not protected by rent co....
The case established the importance of evidence in establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant, and the liability for non-payment of rent under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Co....
Title – Weakness in defendant’s claim for title to property cannot establish plaintiff’s title.
Owner's right to evict licensees prevails over licensee claims to occupancy, especially when the owner's license revocation is communicated, necessitating evidence of ownership clarity.
Title in immovable property cannot vest through mere admission or affidavit without statutory backing, and unlawful actions amount to trespass.
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.