1996 (9) TMI 2 - SC - Income Tax

Whether a bona fide statutory tenant has the right to continue in possession even after an order of purchase was made under section 269UE(1) in Chapter XX-C

Summary

Issues:
Whether a bona fide statutory tenant has the right to continue in possession even after an order of purchase was made under section 269UE(1) in Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appellant, a private limited company, was a tenant in a building on Mount Road, Madras. The owner entered into an agreement for sale of the building, prompting the appropriate authority to initiate proceedings for purchase under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The building was ordered to be purchased by the Central Government, and the appellant was informed that the building vested in the Central Government free from encumbrances. The appellant challenged this in the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition, leading to this appeal.

The appellant contended that the property vested in the Central Government only the right of the erstwhile owner, not affecting the leasehold right of the appellant. Additionally, the appellant argued that their right was protected by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and hence, their statutory right could not be bypassed through the vesting process. However, the High Court rejected both contentions, emphasizing that the property vested in the Central Government free from encumbrances as per the sale agreement, and the T. N. Act did not protect tenants of buildings owned by the Central Government.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down the expression "free from all encumbrances" in section 269UE of the Act. The Court clarified that the property would vest in the Central Government subject to existing encumbrances and leasehold interests, except those agreed to be discharged by the vendor. The Court also approved that if the sale agreement stipulates the property to be free from encumbrances, the property would vest in the Central Government accordingly.

Regarding monthly tenancies, the Court noted that tenants under rent protection laws could lose their protection if the property is owned by the Central Government. The appellant argued that the T. N. Act applied to buildings owned by the Central Government, challenging the High Court's finding that rent control laws do not protect tenancies in Central Government properties. The Court remitted the case to the High Court to reconsider the application of the T. N. Act to Central Government buildings.