9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (3) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... February 1948. According to the respondent the present appellant colluded with the tenant, Mistri Ibrahim, and entered into possession of the land sometimes before 1950. Mistri Ibrahim ultimately left for Pakistan and the appellant was recognised as his tenant by Harbans Lal on the same terms and conditions. Harbans Lal died in November 1954 and left a will in which he created a trust known as Harbans Lal Charitable Trust. In 1959 after serving a notice on the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy the respondent filed a suit for ejectment. The Suit was contested by the appellant on the ground , inter alia, that when the land was let out to him It had a roofed varandah and kothri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led for eviction of the appellant without obtaining such permission which admittedly was not done. 5. The principal argument on behalf of the appellant is that an allotment Order was made on February 27, 1950 by the Rent Control Officer in favour of the appellant. In that allotment Order the schedule of accommodation contained the following: mud roof varandah and a kothri with open place at present is used by Shri Mohd. Ibrahim for tonga repairing work, situated at Begum Bridge Road in front of Dr. Phopel's Kothi. It appears that Harbans Lal drafted out a letter, to the Rent Control Officer pointing out that only a part of the land had been let out by him to Mistri Mohd. Ibrahim by an agreement dated 7-1-1041 according to whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Property Act the lessee could, after determination of the lease, remove while in possession the construction made by him but if he failed to do so and the property reverted to the lessor the fixtures etc. would become the property of the latter. Since Mistri Ibrahim did not put the landlord in possession and transferred the land together with the structure put up by him to the appellant the transferee stepped into the shoes of the lessee. Thus so far as the appellant and Harbans Lal were concerned the former was tenant only of the land and no accommodation had been rented out to him by the latter. As such the provisions of Section 3 of the Act would not be attracted. The High Court also considered this point and expressed the opinion t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Control Officer in favour of the appellant was never challenged by Harbans Lal or the respondents. It was on the basis of that Order and the representation contained in it that it was accommodation which was to be the subject matter of tenancy that the appellant had expended a good deal of money on further construction. We are wholly unable to understand how any description of the property in the allotment Order could be treated as a representation made by the respondents. It has not been shown that the allotment Order created any such rights on the basis of which the appellant could found his defence on the Rule of estoppel. The Additional Civil Judge had found on issue No. 4 that Harbans Lal never gave express consent for the construc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
