9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 1235 - SC - Indian LawsOwnership of suit property - plaintiffs are landlords and the Defendants are tenants of the suit premises or not - Defendants have committed breach of agreement of lease by not maintaining the property and by causing damage to it or not - Defendants have disowned the title of the Plaintiff and thereby committed breach of the agreement of lease or not - damage to suit property - jurisdiction to entertain try and decide the suit - HELD THAT - The land of the suit premises belong to the Union of India-Appellants herein. Therefore they cannot be held to be tenants of the suit premises comprising of an area of 0.90 acres together with structure consisting of main Bungalow Servant Quarter and Garage. The Plaintiffs-Respondents have only right with regard to the structure built on the suit premises. The Union of India-Appellants have a right for resumption of the suit premises as evident from evidence on record. This issue was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court the Appellate Court and the High Court which also failed to notice the Appellants right Under Section 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act 1895. The impugned judgment is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and right of resumption of the suit premises. 2. Applicability of the Government Grants Act, 1895. 3. Jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court. 4. Landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. 5. Legality of the resumption notice dated 11th June, 1971. 6. Entitlement to possession and arrears of rent. Detailed Analysis: 1. Ownership and Right of Resumption of the Suit Premises: The land in question, bearing GLR Survey No. 258, belongs to the Union of India (Pune Cantonment Board). Initially granted to Nusserwanji Sorabji Anklesaria, the land was used to erect a superstructure, including a bungalow, garage, and servant quarters. The right of resumption was retained by the Government as per the old grant conditions (GGO 14 dated 6th January, 1827). The Government exercised this right and issued a resumption notice on 11th June, 1971, offering compensation for the authorized erections. 2. Applicability of the Government Grants Act, 1895: Section 2 of the Government Grants Act, 1895, states that the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not apply to Government grants. Section 3 further clarifies that Government grants take effect according to their tenor, overriding any rule of law, statute, or legislative enactment to the contrary. This means that the terms of the original grant govern the rights and obligations of the parties, including the right of the Government to resume the land. 3. Jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court: The Small Causes Court at Pune had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it involved a landlord-tenant relationship concerning the superstructure. However, the Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence regarding the ownership of the land and the Government's right of resumption under the Government Grants Act, 1895. 4. Landlord-Tenant Relationship Between the Parties: The Plaintiffs-Respondents claimed ownership of the suit premises as freehold property, which was misleading. The land belongs to the Union of India, and the Plaintiffs-Respondents only had rights concerning the superstructure. The Defendants-Appellants (Union of India) were not tenants but had resumed the property under the old grant terms. The Trial Court's finding that the Defendants were tenants was incorrect and influenced by misleading pleadings. 5. Legality of the Resumption Notice Dated 11th June, 1971: The resumption notice issued by the Government was challenged and initially set aside by the Bombay High Court. However, the Supreme Court's order dated 4th August, 1998, allowed the Union of India to seek dispossession of the Respondents in accordance with law, indicating that the High Court's decision was not final. The Government's right to resume the land under the old grant terms was upheld. 6. Entitlement to Possession and Arrears of Rent: The Plaintiffs-Respondents were not entitled to possession of the land as it belongs to the Union of India. The claim for arrears of rent was also unfounded as the Defendants-Appellants were not tenants. The Trial Court's partial decree in favor of the Plaintiffs-Respondents was based on incorrect findings regarding the landlord-tenant relationship and breach of lease terms. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court, the First Appellate Court, and the Trial Court. The Civil Suit No. 695/1999 filed by the Plaintiffs-Respondents was dismissed. The appeal was allowed, recognizing the Union of India's right to the land and the erroneous findings of the lower courts regarding the landlord-tenant relationship and the applicability of the Government Grants Act, 1895.
|
