FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MERCHANTS UNION versus DELHI IMPROVEMENT TRUST

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 06-11-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. JAGANNADHADAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

,\ 
THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
--------------------·------
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MERCHANTS UNION 
ti. 
DELHI IMPROVEMENT TRUST 
(JAGANNAoHA1As, B. P. SrNHA and }AFER IMAM, JJ.) 
Ejectment-Market constructed by Improvement Trust on Govern-
ment land with Government money-Whether market Government 
premises-Whether lessee of market protected from ejectment-Connota-
tion of the word'vest'-Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, (XXXVIII 
-0f 1952), s. 3(a)-U. P. Town Improvement Act, (U. P. Act V/ll of 
1919) as extended to Delhi, s. 54A(2). 
Under an agreement the Government placed certain lands 
belonging to it at the disposal of the Improvement Trust for the 
<:onstruction of a market. The Trust constructed the market with 
funds advanced by the Government by way 
of loan at interest. 
Under the agreement the Trust had to pay a certain fixed sum by 
way of revenue on the property; the income from the market had 
to be applied to the payment of interest on the money advanced 
by Government, and to the payment of expenses for the manage-
ment of the market and the surplus had to be placed at the disposal 
of Government to be spent according to its directions. 
The lessee 
of the market from the Trust filed a suit for a declaration that it 
was protected from ejectment by the provisions of the_ Delhi and 
Ajmer Rent Control Act. It was contended by the lessee that the 
market was the property of the Trust to which the Act applied. It 
was further contended by the lessee relying upon the language of 
~. 54A(2) of the U. P. Town Improvement Act, that the market 
vested in the Trust for otherwise it could not upon transfer by 
the Trust vest in the Chief Commissioner as provided by this 
section. 
Held, that upon a proper construction of the 
l~rms of the 
agreement between the Trust and the Government, the Trust was 
in the position of a statutory agem of the Government and that 
the market was Government premises to which the provisions of 
the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act were not applicable by 
virtue of s. 3(a) thereof, and consequently the lessee was liable to 
ejectment upon termination of the period of the lease. 
The word 'vest' has not got a fixed connotation, meaning in all 
cases that the property j5 owned by the person or authority in 
whom it vests. 
It may vest in title, or it may vest in possession 
_. 
<>r it may v~t in a limited sense. 
November6 
Fruit & Vege-
tab/1 Merchants 
Union 
v. 
Delhi Improve-
tlUnt T ru.rt 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19571 
C1vIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 32 of 1955. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated May 5,. 
1954, of the High .Court of Punjab at Chandigarh in 
Regular First Appeal No. 115 of 1953 arising out of 
the decree dated June 6, 1953, of the Court of the 
Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, in Suit No. 26 of 
1953. 
Dewan Chaman Lal and Ratan Lal Chawla, for the 
appellant. 
M. C. Setalvad Attorney-General for India, Porur 
A. Mehta and R.H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 
1956. November 6. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
SINHA J .-The main question for determination in 
this appeal from the concurrent decisions of the courts 
below is whether the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control 
Act, XXXVIII of 1952 (which hereinafter will be 
referred to as the Control Act) is applicable to the 
1-
premises in question. The courts below have come to 
the conclusion that in view of the provisions of section 
3(a) of the Control Act the market called the New Fruit 
and Vegetable Market, Subzimandi, under the adminis-
tration the respondent, the Delhi Improvement Trust, 
(which hereinafter will be referred to as the Trust) is 
Government property to which the provisions of the 
Act are not attracted. This appeal has . been brought 
to this Court on a certificate granted by the High Court 
of Judicature of the State of Punjab that the case 
involved a substantial question of law as to the legal 
statuts of the respondent vis-a-vis the Government. 
The sequence of events leading up to the institution 
of the suit by the appellant 
"The Fruit and Vegetable 
Merchants Union, Subzimandi" a registered body under 
the Indian Trade Unions Act, giving rise to this appeal 
may shortly be stated as follows : 
By an agreement dated March 31, 1937, (Exhibit D-5) 
between the Secretary of State for India in Council 
and the Delhi Improvement Trust, which will have to 
be set out in detail hereinafter and the construction oi: 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
3 
which i

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