LexBADRI LAL versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF INDORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
D E G BADRI LAL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF INDORE December 6, 1972 15 [A. ALAGIRISWAMl, I. D. DUA AND C. A. VAID!ALlNGAM, JJ.] Madh,va Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, s. SO-Terms of leas• accepted by Commissioner-Resolution of Corporation not to grant lease -Effect of. Tenant by sufferance-It should be given n·otice before eviction. The appellant was a lessee of a plot of land belonging to the respon· dent-corp~ration. When the respondent issued notice t0 the appe1lant dir· ecting him to vacate the land on the date of expiry of the lease, the appel· !ant applied for a grant to him of a lease for 99 years or at least for 10 years. The respondent passed a resolution that the land would be given to the appellant if he deposited certain amount as upset price and paid a higher rent, and that otherwise possession of the -land should be taken back. The appellant did ll<lt comply with the terms but made a counter offer., Having failed in his appeal to the Minister, 7 years after the resolu· tion passed by the respondent, he offered to pay a part of the amount fixed by the resolution and the balance in instalments. This was accep- ted by the Municipal Commissioner. The appellant did not pay any amount and the respondent filed a suit for eviction. During the pendency of the suit the appellant offered to pay the full upset price, the rent that may be found due, as well as costs of the suit and requested that perma• nent lease for 9!> years may be granted to him, He also sent a cheque for part of tho amount (tho rent having been calculated at the old rate) but after receiving reminders from the Commissioner paid the balance a few days later. The respondent however passed another resolution refusing to grant the lease to the appellant. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit holding that the appellant was a tenant holding over. The High Court in second appeal decreed the suit of the respondent-Corporation. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD: ( 1) No contract was concluded between the parties as a res- ult of the payments by the appellant. [18 G] The Commissioner cannot enter into a contract by himself and can do so only if it is sanctioned by the Corporation under s. 80 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act. Nor was it open to the Commis~ sioner to make any offer to the appellant or to accept any offer from the sppellant in respect of the land except with the sanction of the muni· cipal council. Even the offer made by the respondent·Corpo•ation by its resolution came to an end with the filing of the suit by the Corporation and the Corporation cannot be deemed to have kept it open. The appel· !ant's offer, after the suit was filed, was a new offer and it was rejected by the only authority competent to accept it namely, the Corpora- tion. [18 G-H; 19 D-G] (2) The deposit of the rent by the appellant and acceptance of it by the Commisssioner cannot be deemed to make the sppellant a tenant hold· ing over. (20 BJ 16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1973] 3 s.c.R. A The payment was at the old rate by the appellant and its acceptance by the Commissioner was not an acceptance of rent as .such and in clear recognition of the tenancy right of the appellant. It cannot amount to the Corporation consenting to the appellant continuing as a tenant by paying the old rates of rent. T_here is thus no question of the appellant being a tenap.t holding over. He had become only a tenant by suffer- ance and hence there was no need for any notice before he could be B evicted. f20 A-CJ Kai Khusl1roo Bezonjee Cavadia v. Bai .Terhai Hirjibhoy Warden & Anr. [1949-50] F.C.R. 262 at 270 and Bhawanji Lakhmshi v. Himat/a/ Jamtl£o'das Dani [1972] I S.C.C. 388 followed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No, 1243 of 19~. c Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated May 7, 1966 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Second Appeal No. 475 of 1962. S. V. Gupte and Rameshwar Nath for the appellant. V. M. Tarkunde, P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dadacharji and Ravinder Narain .. for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Alagiriswami, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Couri of Madhya Pradesh in Second Appeal No. 475 of 1962 on the files of that Court. The appellant became a lessee of a plot of land measuring 10,375 sq. feet (72! Chasmas) situate at 28, Parsimohall
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.