SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Online)(SC) 613

SUPREME COURT
, J
DDA – Appellant
Versus
M/s Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
RSA No. 6 of 1983



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ashwani Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan

The acceptance of rent does not imply automatic lease renewal; formal approval and adherence to lease terms are essential for valid extension.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Sections 21 and 22 - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Termination of lease - Alleged automatic renewal of lease due to acceptance of rent not valid as per lease terms - The court affirmed that such acceptance does not signify consent for renewal and breaches must be addressed. (Paras 4, 23, 25, 30)

(B) Lease Renewal - Conditions for automatic renewal of lease as per clause III(b) of lease deed not fulfilled due to breaches by lessee and failure to remedy - The High Court's ruling on renewal based on rent acceptance was erroneous. (Paras 25, 27, 34)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a dispute over lease renewal of property originally granted in 1951. The DDA claimed non-renewal due to breach of terms by original lessee, who allegedly sublet parts of the property. The High Court dismissed the DDA's appeal, determining rent acceptance implied lease renewal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the lease was not renewed due to the original lessee's breaches, rendering his continued occupation unauthorized. The acceptance of rent by the DDA post-lease did not amount to renewal. (Paras 24, 28)

Issues: Whether acceptance of rent by DDA constituted automatic renewal of lease after its expiry, and whether lessee's subsequent transfer of property to another party was valid. (Paras 22)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere acceptance of rent, coupled with the absence of formal renewal, does not validate the lease. The original lessee became an unauthorized occupant upon lease expiration due to his failure to correct identified breaches. (Paras 25, 30)

Result: Appeal allowed. The High Court’s decision overturned, DDA permitted to reclaim possession and seek damages for unauthorized occupation.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the lease and appeals. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. arguments of dda against lease renewal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. court's observations and analysis of lease validity. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RSA No. 6 of 1983, wherein the High Court has dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant - Authority (hereinafter called " DDA ") holding that acceptance of rent, in the instant case, by the pursuant to a demand made by it amounts to a renewal of lease in respect of the property in question.

3. Brief facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties:
The Delhi Improvement Trust vide lease deed dated 06.01.1951 granted lease of plot no.2, Jhandewalan, "E" Block, Delhi in favour of original lessee Balraj Virmani. After enactment of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 , the DDA was constituted by notification of the Central Government and by virtue of S.60 of the aforesaid Act, all properties, movable or immovable, vested in the Delhi Improvement Trust came to be vested in the .

4. The lease in respect of property in question was initially for a period of 20 years i.e., w.e.f. 11.08.1948 to 10.08.1968 and the same was liable to be extended for a further period of 20 years at the option of lessee in accordance with the terms and conditions contained therein. Clause (vi) of the lease deed is a relevant condition, which reads as under:
"vi) not to use the said land and buildings that may be erected thereon during the said term for any other purpose other than for the purpose of cold storage plant without the consent in writing of the said lessor; provided that the lease shall become void if the land is used for any purpose other than that for which the lease is granted not beinga purpose subsequently approved by the lessor".
Clause III(b) is another relevant condition which reads thus:
"III(b) in case this lease with the lessee shall continue for the said period of 20 years and provided the lessee has observed performed and complied with the terms and covenants, conditions and options to renew the lease on such terms and conditions as the lessor deems fit for further period of 20 years, provided that the notice of the intention of the lessee to exercise this option of renewal is given to the lessor six months before the expiration of the lease; provided further that if the lease is extended for a further period 20 years the lessor shall have the right to enhance the rental upto 50% at the original rent."



5. On 23.02.1967, the original lessee approached the DDA for renewal of his lease. The served a show cause notice dated 16.02.1968 to the original lessee for breach of the terms and conditions contained in the lease deed committed by him with respect to the lease. Following breaches were pointed out in the aforesaid show cause notice:
a. The mezzanine floor of the said building being used for printing press and office purposes by different tenants in contravention of the clause 1(vi) and (vii) of the lease deed.
b. Cold storage has been sublet to M/s. Baikunth cold storage since December, 1965 in contravention of clause 1(vii) of the lease deed.
c. Portion of mezzanine floor being used for residential purposes by the cold storage staff in contravention of clause 1(xv) of the lease deed.
d. Only single storey building stands on the plot in place of four storied building in contravention of clause 1(xv)(c) of the lease deed.
By the said notice, 15 days time was given to the original lessee to remedy the breaches as pointed out in the show cause notice. The original lessee replied to the said show cause notice through various communications dated 01.03.1968, 26.06.1968 and 01.07.1968. However, no furthe



























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top