Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (8) TMI 425

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... haritable trust in Madras in favour of a well-established engineering company of all-India stature, we were somewhat hopeful that the parties would agree not to waste further time and energy in litigation but would come to some reasonable compromise. We tried our best by adjourning the case several times and encouraging the parties to come up with various proposals for compromise. Ultimately, however, we found that it was not possible to bring the parties together. We, there-fore, proceed to dispose of the issues raised in the appeal. On. 13.8. 1951, M/s. Larsen Toubro. the appellant company, took on lease from the respondent trustees a property situated in a busy central locality of the city of Madras. In 1975, the trustees filed a suit for possession. The appellant company respondent by claiming protection under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act (No. 111 of 1922) (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'). The short question that arises in the appeal is whether the company is entitled to this protection. The above piece of legislation was enacted primarily for the protection of small tenants, who in certain municipal towns and adjoining areas had c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... blet the demised land or any part thereof or the demised buildings or any portion or portions thereof at any higher rental and the Corporation authorities levy a property tax on the demised land or buildings higher than that based on a monthly rent of ₹ 950 and ₹ 300 respectively, the lessees shall pay such excess tax, if any, to the lessors. xxx xxx xxx (j) the lessees were to enjoy the demised land during the term of the lease but surrender the demised land and the buildings to the lessors at the termination of the lease xxx xxx xxx (m) the lessees during the subsistence of the lease, were to renovate, at their own cost, the demised buildings or any portion or portions thereof and carry out and effect all repairs considered necessary for their use and habitation. Under Para III of the lease deed, it was agreed between the parties, inter alia: (a) that in case of any default in the payment of rent or any breach of the covenant between the parties, the lessor could re-enter upon the demised plot and buildings PG NO 760 or upon any part thereof in the name of the whole and determine the lease ; (b) that, in case the lessee fulfilled his obligatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in any other area; and includes the appurtenance thereto. (2) Land does not include buildings. (4) 'Tenant' in relation to any- (i) means a person liable to pay rent in respect of such land, under a tenancy agreement express or implied, and (ii) includes- (a) any such person as is referred to in sub-clause (i) who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement, (b) any person who was a tenant in respect of such land under a tenancy agreement to which this Act is applicable under sub-section (3) of section 1 and who or any of his predecessors in interest had erected any building on such land and who continues in actual physical possession of such land and building, notwithstanding that- (1) such person was not entitled to the rights under this Act by reason of the proviso to section 13 of this Act as it stood before the date of the publication of the Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1972), or (2) a decree for declaration or a decree or an order for possession or for similar relief has been passed against such person on the ground that the proviso to section 12 of this Act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... three months and not more than three years from the date of the order, the tenant shall pay into court or otherwise as directed the price so fixed in one or more instalments with or without interest. (2) In default of payment by the tenant of any one instalment, the application under clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall stand dismissed, provided that on sufficient cause being shown, the court may excuse the delay and pass such orders as it may think fit, but not so as to extend the time for payment beyond the three years above mentioned. On the application being dismissed, the court shall order the amount of the instalment or instalments, if any, paid by the tenant to be repaid to him without any interest. (3)(a) On payment of the price fixed under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the court shall pass an order directing the conveyance by the landlord to the tenant of the extent of land for which the said price was fixed. The court shall by the same order direct the tenant to put the landlord into possession of the remaining extent of the land, if any. The stamp duty and registration fee in respect of such conveyance shall be borne by the tenant. [b] On the order referred to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t will be seen that the Act applies only to tenants in respect of land situated in certain areas where the tenancy has been created before a prescribed date. The only controversy here is whether the lease in question can be said to be a lease of `land'. S. 2(2) which purports in define 'land' only clarifies that 'land' does not include 'building'. 'This takes us therefore to the definition of 'building' in s. 2(1) which expression means any structure whatever put up on land 'and includes the appurtenance thereto'. From these definitions It will be clear that, before a right of purchase can be exercised under Section 9$, the tenant must be a tenant of land, not comprising of buildings or lands appurtenant thereto. In the present case, the High Court has observed as follows: If a land with a building is leased out, then T.N. Act III of 1972 would have no applicability to such a property. (That) there was a palatial building over the property could not be disputed because the property originally belonged to a notable dignitary in yester years, who lived in that building with a spacious compound all round the property (and) which was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... olutely necessary for the necessary and convenient enjoyment of the building in question. Pointing out that the building in the present case occupied barely an eighth of the area of the entire plot of land which was the subject matter of the lease, he contends that the land covered by the lease cannot be said to be appurtenant land. In this context, learned counsel relies on the definition of `appurtenant' in Black's Law Dictionary (Special Deluxe, Fifth Edition) page 94 which, in so far as is relevant, reads as follows: Appurtenant: belonging to; accessory or incident to; adjunct, appeanded, or annexed to; answering to accessorium in civil law. Employed in leases for the purpose of including any easments or servitudes used or enjoyed with the demised premises. A thing is 'appurtenant' to something else when it stands in relation of an incident to a principal and is necessarily connected with the use and enjoyment of the latter. A thing is deemed to be incidental or appurtenant to land when it is by right used with the land for its benefit, as in the case of a way, or water- course, or of a passage for light, air or heat from or across the land of another. I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and definite meaning Prima facie it imports nothing more than what is strictly appertaining to the subject matter of the devise or grant, and which would, in truth, pass without being specially mentioned. Ordinarily, what is necessarily for the enjoyment and has been used for the purpose of the building, such as easements, alone will be appurtenant. Therefore, what is necessary for the enjoyment of the building is alone covered by the expression 'appurtenance'. If some other purpose was being fulfilled by the building and the Iands, it is not possible to contend that these lands are covered by the expression appurtenances . Indeed it is settled by the earliest authority, repeated without contradiction to the latest, that land cannot be appurtenant to land. The word 'appurtenances' includes all the incorporal hereditaments attached to the land granted of demised, such as rights of way, of common. but it does not include lands in addition to that granted' (Words and Phrases, supra]. In short, the touchstone of `appurtenance' is dependence of the building on what appertains to it for its use as a building. The law thus leads to the clear conclusion that ev .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed land or building or any part or portion thereof PG NO 769 subject only to its being liable for any extra burden of municipal tax that may fall on the landlord as a consequence; 5. The covenant that, if during the subsistence of the lease, the lessors got an offer for the purchase of the demised plot of land or the buildings or both from third parties the lessee should be given a first option to purchase at the price offered. Relying upon the above features, it was contended that the lease deed does deal with the land and building separately. Separate rents were provided for; the lessees were given right to put up structures and, if necessary, even let them out; the sale or disposal of various parts of the land or the building separately was envisaged. It was, therefore, vehemently contended that the lease deed should be construed as consisting of two leases, one in respect of the vacant land and one in respect of the building rolled into one. We are unable to accept this contention. We agree with the conclusion of the High Court that these clauses of the lease deed cannot to be construed in the manner suggested by the lessees. There are clear indications in the lease deed tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Iessee to deal with the land, during the period of demise, to the best advantage without affecting the lessor's interests. There was a substantial building existing on the land. There is no material to indicate that this was not sufficient for the purposes for which the building was taken on lease by the appellant. However, in case it was considered necessary to put up further structures, the lease deed permits the lessee to do so subject to safeguards against higher tax and compensation and with a stipulation that this should be removed at the time of termination of the lease. So far as the clause pertaining to sale is concerned, again, it merely provides for a possible eventuality. The execution of a lease deed does not prevent the lessor from disposing of the property, in whole or in part, subject to the lessees' leasehold rights therein. The clause only provides that, in case the landlord decided to exercise this right, he should give a right of pre-emption to the lessee. Thus all these are merely clauses which provide against the various contingencies that may occur during the period of the lease which may go up to 42 years. It is not possible to infer from these c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n of compensation and only talks of the lessees' right to remove structures. Even if no such clauses had been inserted, that would have been the position in law. it is not possible to infer from such a neutral clause that it was put in with a view to deny compensation to the lessee and thus get over the hurdle of the assessee putting in a claim for acquiring the property by purchase. lt is clear that the lease deed between the parties is a simple lease deed containing the usual clauses and covenants that one expects in it and nothing more. lf indeed, the parties had been conscious of the possibility of the lessee claiming any rights under the Act, the lessors would have tried to safeguard themselves by making it clear that what was being let out was only a building and appurtenant land. We, therefore, do not think that there is much force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. As the view we have taken is entirely based on a construction of the lease deed before us, we do not consider it necessary to refer to the various decisions discussed by the High Court in its judgment. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. The respondents will be e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates