1989 (4) TMI 320 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Status of the appellants as thika tenants.
2. Application of waiver, estoppel, and res judicata.

Summary:

Status of the Appellants as Thika Tenants:
The primary issue was whether the appellants acquired the status of thika tenants under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949. The lease in question, dated 26th September 1946, initially covered a period of 10 years with options for extensions based on the lessee's compliance with rent payments and other conditions. The appellants argued that they became thika tenants as the lease was initially for 10 years, and they did not pay the enhanced rent, thus merely holding over. However, the Court noted that the lease explicitly stated a total duration of 20 years, with extensions contingent on compliance with the lease terms. The Court emphasized that the term "extension" implies a continuation of the existing lease rather than a new lease, thus confirming the lease duration as 20 years. Consequently, the appellants did not qualify as thika tenants since the lease duration was not less than 12 years as required u/s 2(5)(b) of the Act.

Waiver, Estoppel, and Res Judicata:
The appellants contended that the respondents were estopped from denying their status as thika tenants due to previous proceedings before the Controller under the Act, where the respondents allegedly treated them as such. However, the Court found no conclusive orders from these proceedings that conferred thika tenant status on the appellants. The Court clarified that waiver requires a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right, which was not evident in this case. Estoppel, which necessitates the detriment of the other party by the conduct of the one estopped, was also not applicable as no such detriment was proven. The Court further held that the intrinsic character of the lease could not be altered by pleadings or previous proceedings, reaffirming that the lease was for 20 years. Therefore, the respondents were not barred by waiver, estoppel, or res judicata from asserting their rights under the lease.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the appellants were not thika tenants and that the respondents were not estopped from asserting their rights under the lease. The stay order, if any, was vacated, and no costs were awarded.