BASANT LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR. versus THE STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 25-09-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SlS 
A 
BASANT LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR. 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
September 25, 1980 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act, sections 108(/z) and 114A, scope and app/icabi-
-C" 
lily of. 
The appellants terminated the lease of the suit lands by a notice dated 
26th February, 1944 and allowed the lessee company "Narain Das Lachman 
Das Oil Mill" time till 30th June, 1944 for the removal of machinery, stores, 
buildings and other constructions in terms of clause (6) of the lease-deed dated 
2nd Ju,ne, 1941. The company not only secured an order from a Civil Court 
forbidding the appellants from ejecting it, but applied to the State Govern· 
ment for compulsory acquisition of the suit land, 
In the land acquisition 
proceedings, the claim of the appellants "for the machinery, st()res, buildings 
and other constructions made by the Jessee" by virtue of automatic vesting 
in the appellants in terms of clause (6) of the lease-deed dated 2nd June, 1941 
and also, pursuant to notice of termination, was negatived. 
Having failed 
before the District Court and the High Court to obtain the relief, the appel-
lants obtained special leave of the Supreme Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : (1) Although the lessee continued to remain -in the premises after 
the expiry of the notice terminating the lease, yet by force of the express 
recitals in clause (6) of the lease-deed dated 2nd June, 1941, the buildings, 
etc., became the property of the lessors. , Therefore, after the Government 
acquired the property it was bound to pay compensation to the appellants not 
only for the land but also for the buildings and structures thereon. 
[821H; 822AJ 
_(2) There was no waiver of the notice by the appellants, 
There is no 
reliable evidence at all in the instant case to show the exact date when the 
rent was accepted or, at any rate, the fact that ihe rent was accepted between 
the 26th February, 1944, when the notice was sent, and the 30th June, 1944, 
when the Company was asked to vacate -the premises, 
Besides there is a 
fiinding of fact that the Company was treated as a trespasser ever since 26th 
February, 1944, namely, the date when the notice was given and that any 
rent which the appellants accepted was really not rent but m'ere compensation 
for wrongful use and occupation of the land. [819C-E] 
(3) It is no 'doubt true that s. l 14A of the Transfer of Property Act requires 
two conditions to be fulfilled before a suit for ejectmeni ~ould lie-(i) that 
a notide should be -given to· the· lessee specifyirtg the particular breach com-
plained of, and (ii) that the lessee should be called upon to remedy the 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B 
D 
. E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 1 S.C.R. 
breach. If these conditions are fulfilled, then alone the lessor would be entitled 
to bring a suit for ejectment of the lessee. Section 114A merely bars a suit 
:for ejectment of the lessee in the instant case as the land had been acquired 
:for the purpose of the lessee, namely, the Company, the question of filing a 
suit for ejectment did not arise at all. 
In fact, the lessees themselves tiled a 
1mit and obtained injunction restminiug the appellants from ejecting them 
before tbe land acquisition proceedings were taken in respect of the land in 
dispute. 
Thus, tbe non-compliance of sub-s. (b) of s. 114A is of no conse-
quence so far as tl1is particular case· is concerned. In the lease dated 2nd 
June, 1941, clause (6) clearl.Y Jays down that within four months after the 
c'xpiry of the period of the lease tbe lessee would be entitled to remove the 
stocks and machinery. 
The last part of that clause also empowers the lessor 
to re-enter possession and acquire title to tbe 
buildings 
etc., that may be 
constructed by the lessee. [819H; 820B-D] 
(4) A construction of claul!e (h) of s. 108 of the il'ransfer of Property 
.Act clearly reveals that where there is a contract contrary to the provisi.:>ns 
of tbat section would not apply. 
In the lease dated June 2, 1941, there is 
not only an express clause under which the lessee was entitled to remove the 
stocks and materials witbin four months after the termination of the lease but 
thereafter there was another stipulation that in case the lessee failed to do 
so, all the buildings etc. would become the property of the lessor. [82JA-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuR1smcnoN : Civil Appeal No. 1145 of 
1970. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8-4-1969 of the Allahabad 
H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.