1976 (8) TMI 168 - SC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court
2. Tenancy Claim
3. Amendment of Written Statement
4. Sham and Colourable Document
5. Irrevocable License
6. Decree for Payment
7. Awarding Possession with Improvements

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court:
The appellant contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as he was in possession of the lands as a tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The trial court referred the issue of tenancy to the Tahsildar under Section 85-A of the Act. The Tahsildar, and subsequently the Collector, held that the appellant was not a tenant. However, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal reversed this finding, which was later set aside by the Bombay High Court, affirming that the appellant was not a tenant but an agent under the power of attorney.

2. Tenancy Claim:
The appellant's main defense was his claim of tenancy. This was rejected at multiple levels, including by the Tahsildar, the Collector, and ultimately by the Bombay High Court. The appellant's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was also dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed that the appellant was not a tenant of the respondent.

3. Amendment of Written Statement:
The appellant sought to amend his written statement to claim possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, alleging an agreement of sale. This application was dismissed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court, which found the application to be made in bad faith and lacking substance. The Supreme Court also found no merit in this contention, noting the absence of a written contract and failure to meet the conditions of Section 53-A.

4. Sham and Colourable Document:
The appellant argued that the power of attorney was a sham document intended to facilitate his possession as a potential purchaser. The Supreme Court found that the power of attorney was acted upon, as evidenced by the appellant's letter agreeing to its terms and the annual payment of Rs. 2000 to the respondent. The Court rejected the claim that the document was a sham.

5. Irrevocable License:
The appellant contended that he was a licensee who had made permanent improvements, making the license irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, noting that the improvements were made in the appellant's capacity as a tenant or prospective purchaser, not as a licensee. The Court also found the evidence of improvements inadequate.

6. Decree for Payment:
The trial court awarded the respondent Rs. 4390 for unpaid amounts under the agreement. The Supreme Court upheld this decree, finding no infirmity in the trial court's finding that this amount was due to the respondent.

7. Awarding Possession with Improvements:
The appellant challenged the award of possession of the lands to the respondent, including the improvements he allegedly made. The Supreme Court found that the appellant did not raise this issue in the trial court and had no basis to claim the value of improvements in his capacities as either a tenant or a prospective purchaser.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's unspeaking order of dismissal and upholding the trial court's decree. The appellant was found to have no tenancy rights, no entitlement under an agreement of sale, and no claim to the value of improvements made on the property. The appeal was dismissed with costs.