9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved. This Court therefore requested Mr. R. N. Trivedi, the Additional Solicitor General of India, to assist the Court as an Amicus Curie. Mr. Trivedi has very ably assisted this Court and the Court expresses its appreciation of the efforts put in by him and the very able assistance rendered by him. At this stage the relevant facts must be briefly stated: The Appellant is the landlord. In May, 1977 he let out the premises in question to the 3rd Respondent on a monthly rent of ₹ 70/-. The 3rd Respondent paid rent for the months of June, July and August 1977 and thereafter stopped paying any rent. The Appellant therefore gave a notice on 4th August, 1982 and filed a suit for ejectment under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on the ground of non-payment of rent. By a Judgment dated 30th September, 1986 the trial Court found that the monthly rent was ₹ 70/- and that the 3rd Respondent had defaulted in payment of rent. The trial Court also held that the notice given by the Appellant was legal and valid. The trial Court still dismissed the Suit on the ground that the contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idential building, he as well as members of his family have taken up residence, not being temporary residence, elsewhere. (2) In the case of non-residential building, where a tenant carrying on business in the building admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner or a new partner, as the case may be, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. (3) in the case of a residential building, if the tenant or any member of his family builds or otherwise acquires in a vacant state or gets vacated a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area in which the building under tenancy is situate, he shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy; Provided that if the tenant or any member of his family had built any such residential building before the date of commencement of this Act, then such tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy upon the expiration of a period of one year from the said date. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (3-A) If the tenant of a residential building holding a transferable post under any Government or local authority or a public s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be an unauthorised occupant of such building or part. 17. Conditions of making allotment order.- (1) Where the District Magistrate receives an intimation, under sub-section (1) of Section 15, of the vacancy or expected vacancy of building any allotment order in respect of that building shall be made and communicated to the landlord within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of such intimation, and where no such order is so made or communicated within the said period, the landlord may intimate to the District Magistrate the name of a person of his choice, and thereupon the District Magistrate shall allot the building in favour of the person so nominated unless for special and adequate reason to be recorded he allots it to any other person within ten days from the receipt of intimation of such nomination : Provided that where the landlord has made an application under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 16, for the release of the whole or any part of the building or land appurtenant thereto in his favour, the said period of twenty-one days shall be computed from the date of decision on that application or where an application for review or an appeal is filed against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lord to let the house to any person. The provisions were more or less identical to the provisions of the said Act. This authority has directly dealt with the questions under consideration and answered them. The majority Judgment takes note of this authority and holds as follows: With utmost humility and reverence it is stated that above observations are not compatible with provisions of Section 10 and 23 of the Contract Act. Otherwise also, it is most respectfully pointed that the statement of law contained in the said observation is, perhaps, in conflict with the law declared in the decisions of the Hon ble Suprme Court in Waman Shriniwas Kini v. Rati Lal Bhagwan Das Co., Shrikrishna Khanna V. Additional District Matgistrate, Kanpur and others, and Manna Lal Khetan V. Kedar Nath Khetan. Thus it is to be seen that the majority Judgment, with a pretence of humility and reverence refuse to follow a binding authority of this Court. It was not open for the Full Bench to comment that the authority was not compatible with provisions of Sections 10 and 23 of the Contract Act. The Full Bench also realised that there are no conflicting authorities. They therefore say that this aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the expiry of 30 days from the date of intimation, the shop in dispute automatically stood released to the plaintiff and the allotment order dated September 18, 1962 was not at all effective vis--vis the rights of the plaintiff as a landlord to use the said premises. (b) That the defendant has no objection if the plaintiff continues to utilize the accommodations for his own business or a business of his son whether himself or in partnership with any person and till such time as the plaintiff and his son utilize the accommodation in this manner, the defendant will not be entitled to enforce his allotment order against him. (c) That the plaintiff has agreed that if at any time he wants to discontinue the business established by him in the said shop and wants to let out the shop to any person, he will do so in favour of the defendant and unless he refuses to take the lease on reasonable terms, the plaintiff will not let out the shop to any third party. (d) That the shop is already in possession of the plaintiff and the defendant will not be entitled to take any steps till the landlord himself desires to let out the shop to the defendant. Thereafter the tenant filed an app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tan or any of its partners. The Certificates of Attachment were also issued on 8th March, 1954 and 18/31st October, 1955 against shares, of M/s Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Private Ltd., belonging to the Khetans. On 31st July, 1957 the members of the Khetan family entered into an agreement amongst themselves by which they agreed to exchange lots of shares amongst themselves in settlement of their differences and disputes. The question before this Court was whether this agreement for transfer of shares could be enforced and whether such an agreement was in violation of Section 108 of the Companies Act, 1946. It is in that context that it was held that the agreement was unenforceable not only because it was against the provisions of Section 108 of the Companies Act but also because of the orders of attachment. This case therefore has nothing to do with the question of enforceability of an agreement between a landlord and tenant and lays down nothing contrary to what has been laid down in Nanakram s case. It is thus to be seen that the principles laid down in Nanakram s case still hold the field. There is no contrary or conflicting decision or authority. The Full Bench was bound by the au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
