2004 Supreme(SC) 418

2004(3) Supreme 34
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.H. Kapadia, J.
Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and Ors. -Appellants
versus
Mohan Krishan Abrol and Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1257 of 1999
With
C.A. No. 1265 of 1999
Decided on 2-4-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, H.M. Singh, Ranbir Yadav, Anil Hooda, Kaushal Yadav, Ms. Shabana Saifi, R.S. Suri, Ms. Anu Mohla, Rajeev Sharma, Kishan Datta, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
In the matter of interpretation of Wills, the Court has to look at the wishes of the testator indicated therein as intention of the testator shall be effectuated as far as possible.

Headnote:Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973-Sections 4 and 5-Indian Succession Act, 1925-Sections 87, 211 and 213-Eviction proceedings-Owner of property executed a registered Will, whereby she bequeathed the said property to the State Government through a Government Hospital-Clause 2 of the Will states-That a complete bequest was made in favour of the Hospital which was to operate for all times in future-Testatrix appointed three executors-Mutation made in favour of the said Hospital-Hospital moved an application under Sections 4 and 5 for eviction of respondent 1 who are alleged to be unauthorized occupants of the property-Whether the Government Hospital was the owner or the beneficiary-Held, the Hospital was the owner, not a beneficiary-Whether eviction proceedings filed by the said Hospital were maintainable under the Public Premises Act-(Yes)-Whether respondent 1 was in unauthorised possession of the property-Yes, after the expiry of the lease.

       Held : Clause 2 of the will unequivocally states that the testatrix bequeaths her bungalow to the said Hospital absolutely and forever. The very first sentence of clause 2 indicates that a complete bequest was made in favour of the said Hospital which was to operate for all times in future. Further clause 2 stipulates that the property was to be used as a ward of the hospital and for no other purpose. Section 87 of the 1925 Act stipulates that intention of the testator shall be effectuated as far as possible. In the matter of interpretation of wills, the Court has to look at the wishes of the testator indicated therein. In the present case, the testatrix wanted her bungalow to be bequeathed for all times to the government hospital and she wanted it to be used as a ward of the hospital to be named after her late husband. She further directed that the income derived from the surrounding garden and her landed properties should be used for maintenance and improvement so that in future the continuity of the said ward in the hospital is not adversely affected for want of funds. In our view, the High Court erred in holding that the said Hospital was a beneficiary and not the owner. In the circumstances, the said property constituted public premises under section 2(e) of the 1973 Act. (Para 10)

       On the demise of the testatrix, the said property vested in the executors. The question which arises for determination on the facts of this case is whether the executors assented to the vesting of the said property in the Hospital in terms of section 336 of the 1925 Act. In this case, the facts show that the executors never objected to the vesting of the said property in the hospital. Three executors were appointed under the will. They never objected to the legacy. Several meetings of the executors had taken place both before the death of the testatrix on 26th November 1962 and even thereafter for updating the accounts and to obtain probate and at no stage they objected to the vesting of the property in the Hospital. Although application for probate was made, the State was not a party respondent. In fact, mutation was made in favour of the hospital as far back as 2nd April 1970 to which the executors never objected. In the circumstances, the executors had assented to the legacy in favour of the Hospital. Looking to the terms of clause 2 of the will, we hold that the hospital was not a beneficiary, but a full owner of the property; that on the demise of the testatrix the property vested in the executors who assented by their conduct to the legacy of the demised premises in the hospital and consequently, the eviction proceedings were maintainable under the 1973 Act. (Para 11)

       During the lifetime of Smt. Chanan Kaur, a lease was executed in favour of respondent No.1 on 7.6.1962 for ten years. Clause 8 provides for renewal and not for extension of lease. Hence, respondent No.1 was required to apply for renewal which he never did. The so-called application dated 22.5.1972 for renewal merely states that there was a lease deed dated 7.6.1962 and on its expiry, the lessee would continue. In this case, the intention of the testatrix under the will was to bequeath her bungalow to the hospital absolutely and free of all encumbrances and for all times. She wanted her bungalow to be used as a ward in the government hospital. In the circumstances, we are of the view that on expiry of the lease, respondent No.1 was in wrongful and illegal use and occupation of the property in the nature of unauthorized occupation and, therefore, the competent authority was right in passing the impugned order of eviction under the 1973 Act. (Para 13)