M/S. COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES (P) LTD . versus M/S. AUTO SALES (PROPERTIES)

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 231 · Decided: 09-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 231 
• 
MIS. COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES (P) LTD . 
A 
v. 
.• 
M/S. AUTO SALES (PROPERTIES) 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6142-6143 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
..I, 
Deeds and documents: Family settlement - Eviction suit 
- Plea of defendant that they were not tenant but occupying 
the suit premises by virtue of a family settlement, rejected -
c 
Eviction decree - High Court affirmed the decree -
On 
appeal, held: High Court failed to find out the real intention 
of parties in family settlement with regard to the suit premises 
--+ 
- Intention of parties to an instrument must be gathered from 
the tenns thereof in the light of surrounding circumstances -
D 
Matter remitted to High Court for reconsideration on the aspect. 
as to whether under family settlement, relationship of landlord 
and tenant came into existence. 
The respondent filed a suit for eviction against the 
E 
appellant which was decreed. On revision, High Court 
-
.J._ 
affirmed the decree of eviction rejecting the contention 
of appellant that the suit premises were not let out to him 
but in family settlement, it came to the share of husband 
of respondent and was given to appellant to carry on 
F 
business of a family concern and the appellant was to pay 
Rs.10,000 p.m. by way of compensation for use and 
occupation of the suit premises. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that in 
terms of the family settlement, the intention of the parties 
G 
was not to create relationship of landlord and tenant. 
Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to 
High Court, the Court 
231 
H 
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: The High Court proceeded on absolutely 
~ 
erroneous premise that there is no specific denial of 
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties 
in the written statement. The High Court failed to find out 
what was the real ihtention of the parties in the family 
B settlement with regard to retention of subject premises. 
It is well settled 'that the intention of the parties to an 
instrument must be gathered from the terms thereof in 
the light of surrounding circumstances. The true nature 
of relationship between the parties concerning the 
c occupation of subject premises by the appellant was 
required to be ascertained from the family arrangement 
which the High Court failed to do and thereby committed 
grave error in not considering the matter in right 
perspective. As a matter of fact, a material clause of the 
0 family settlement was overlooked altogether affecting 
-+--
decision in the matter. The matter needs to be 
reccmsidered by the High Court on the aspects as to 
whether under the family settlement a relationship of 
landlord and tenant came into existence between the 
parties and, if answer to the said question is in the 
E affirmative, whether such lease is determinable. [Paras 10 
to 13] [237-H; 238-A; 239-C-H] 
F 
Union of India v. Millenium Mumbai Broadcast (P) Ltd. 
(2006) 10 sec 510, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
c2006) 10 sec 510 
relied on 
Para 11 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
G 6142-6143 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 10.12.2007 of the High 
~ 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 275 of 
2003. 
H 
( 
COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES (P) LTD. v. AUTO 
233 
SALES (PROPERTIES) 
Altaf Ahmed, Meenakshi Arora, Anurag Sharma, Prashant A 
Kumar (for AP & J Chambers) for the Appellant. 
Jaideep Gupta, Arvind Varma, Pankaj Naqvi, Pallavi 
Gupta, Siddharth Dave, T. Mahipal, Sankata Mitra, Chandni G., 
for the Respondent. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
-Ai 
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. These two appeals by special leave are directed c 
against the judgment and order dated December 1 o, 2007 
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby 
it dismissed revision petition of the present appellant preferred 
under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes· Courts Act, 
'-i 
1887 and affirmed the judgment and decree for eviction dated 0 
February 5, 2003. 
3. Mis. Auto Sales (Properties) through Smt. Manju Gupta 
- respondent herein filed a suit for eviction and recovery of 
arrears of rent against Mis. Commercial Auto Sales (P) Ltd., 
through its Director Brij Mohan Gupta - appellant in the Court 6 
of Small Causes, Allahabad with regard to portion of premises 
-.>-
on the ground floor of building at 18, Kanpur Road, Allahabad. 
The respondent ave
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.