LexBURMAH SHELL OIL DISTRIBUTING NOW KNOWN AS BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. versus KHAJA MIDHAT NOOR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~> BURMAH SHELL OIL DISTRIBUTING NOW KNOWN AS A BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. KHAJA MIDHAT NOOR AND OTHERS MAY 3, 1988 B ~.~ ISABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] ~ Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Sections 106 and 107-Lease- Absence of a registered instrument-Monthly /ease-Notice of tetmina- tion of lease-Has to be read and construed in context of facts of each particular case and to the parties to whom it is addressed-Valid termi- c nation of lease-Sub lessee need not be made party in ejectment suit. On 16th January, 1958 a lease deed was executed between the lessee and the lessor-respondent in respect of the demised land for a period of ten years, with a right of renewal for a further period of five D years, and with permission to suh'lease the same. The lessee sub-leased the premises to the petitioner for running a petrol pump. Aller the expiry of the lease period on 16th January, 1968, the lessor continued to accept the rent from month to month. However, no fresh instrument >-· was executed by the parties. The lessor issued on 30th November, 1972 a notice to the lessee E terminating the lease and for giVing vacant possession of the land on the expiry of 15th January, 1973 after removing the structures by the 16th - January, 1973. No notice was given separately to the petitioner. The lessee did not contest the suit filed on the basis of the notice. The -~ petitioner contested the proceedings and contended that it was holding F over after the expiry of the lease, that no notice terminating tenancy was received by it, and that the notice was invalid. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the notice termi- nating the lease was necessary and the notice in this case was invalid. The Court also rejected the lessor's plea that the tenancy expired by G affiux of time. The trial Court, however, held that the lease was not ...._ extended for a iixed period of five years in absence of any written instrument. The 1st Additional Sub Judge allowed the lessor's appeal and held the notice valid. The High Court upheld the appellate order. H 811 • 812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] 3 S.C.R. A Dismissing the special leave petition, it was,', B c HELD: (1) In view of paragraph 1 of section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 a lease of immovable property from year.to.year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving an yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the absence of a registered instrument, it must be a monthly lease. [815G-H] (2) The High Court was right in holding that the lessee and the sub-lessee, in the facts of this case, continued to remain In possession as a tenant from month to month. [816A·BI . '(3) The High Court was rightthat the tenancy was automatically determined on the expiry of ten years. The lease was thereafter renewed from month to month which could only be terminated by giving a valid notice. [816E-F) D . , (4) The notice of termination must be read in the context of the facts of each particular case having regard to the situation of the parties to whom it is addressed. If all the paragraphs of the notice in the instant · case are read together in harmony it would be manifest that the lessee was directed to handover the lease-hold property on 16th January, 1973, and hence the notice was a valid notice of termination of the lease E under section 106 of the Act. [817C; 818F) • -~ (5) Law does not require that the sub-lessee need be made a party, if there was a valid termination of the lease. In all cases where the landlord Instituted a suit against the lessee for possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on the lessee and did not F , implead the sub-lessee as a party to the suit, the object of the landlord is Y, to eject the sub-lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate: The decree In such a suit would bind the sub-lessee. [818H;.819A:B]- . Harihar Banerji v. Ramsa$hi Roy, 45 Indian Appeals 222; Mangi· la/ v. Suganchand Rathi, [1964] 5 SCR 239; Subadini v. Durga Charan G Law, I.L.R. 28 Cal US; Gobinda Chandra Saha v. Dwarka Nath Patita, A.I.R. 1915 Cal. 313 and Roop Chand Gupta v. Raghuvanshi (Pvt.) Ltd., AIR 1964 SC 1889, referred to. . >- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition H (Civil) No. 15667of1987. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. v. K.M. NOOR [MUKHARJI, J.[ 813 From the Judgment a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.