NAND RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus JAGDISH PRASAD (D) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1009 · Decided: 19-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1009
NAND RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
v.
JAGDISH PRASAD (D) THROUGH LRS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9918 of 2011)
MARCH 19, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land given on lease for 20
years to the defendant with a clause that plaintiff-lessor could seek
ejectment of the defendant-lessee from the leased premises, only
in case the rent for one year remained in arrear – After six years,
entire leased land acquired under s.4 of the Land Acquisition Act
– Land Acquisition Collector determined market value of the
acquired land – Dispute with regard to apportionment of
compensation referred to the Reference Court – Lessee claimed
share in the compensation on the ground that they were deprived
of the right to retain possession of leased land for the unexpired
period of 14 years of the lease in their favour – Reference court
held that the lessee had not paid rent for more than 12 months and,
thus, in accordance with clause 9 of the lease deed, the lease had
come to an end and therefore, the lessee had no right to claim a
share in the compensation payable for the land leased to them –
After about two years, a part of the land acquired stood de-notified
and the said land continued to be in possession of the lessee –
Thereafter, the lessor filed suit for possession of the said land i.e.
the land leased that continued in possession with the lessee post
the de-notification – Trial court decreed the suit – In appeal
against the said judgment, the lessee sought amendment of his
written statement asserting that the suit was barred by limitation
under Art. 66 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act – First Appellate
Court did not permit the lessee to amend the written statement but
the question of limitation was allowed to be raised on the basis of
material available on record – First Appellate Court did not find
any merit in the argument raised by the lessee that the award
passed by the Reference Court operated as res judicata – First
Appellate Court found that the plea of forfeiture was totally
inconsistent and contradictory to the averments made in the
original statement – High Court allowed the second appeal filed
   [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1009
1009
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
by lessee holding that the finding recorded in the award that upon
non-payment of rent for 12 months, the lease had come to an end,
had attained finality – Therefore, such finding would operate as
res judicata – High Court further held that period of limitation
under Art.67 of the Limitation Act is 12 years, the period for which
commences from the date when the tenancy is determined and since
the tenancy was determined in 1960, the suit filed in 1981 was
beyond the period of limitation – Hence instant appeal – Held:
The issue in the proceedings under s.30 of the Act, before the
Reference Court was restricted to the apportionment of
compensation, consequent to the acquisition of the leased land –
The issue was restricted to the payment of compensation on account
of the unexpired period of lease and issue was not the title of the
lessor or the eviction of the lessee – Before the award was
announced by the Reference Court, part of the land acquired was
de-notified – After denotification of the land, the lessee continued
to be in possession and the title of the lessor as owners stood
restored – De-notification under s.48 of the Act is possible only
when possession has not been taken and the land has not been
vested in the State – Once the land was de-notified, the status of
the parties as they existed prior to s.4 notification stood revived –
Finding returned in the award of the Reference Court that the lease
stood determined on account of non-payment of rent was a finding
made by the Reference Court for a limited purpose i.e. not to accept
the lessee’s claim for compensation – Such finding cannot be
binding on the parties in a suit for possession based on title or as
a lessor against a lessee – Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.67.
Limitation Act, 1963: Art.67 – Suit filed within 12 years of
the determination of the tenancy by efflux of time – The defendant
has not proved forfeiture of tenancy prior to the expiry of lease
period – Mere non-payment of rent does not amount to forfeiture
of tenancy – It only confers a right on the landlord to seek
possession – The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession against the
defendant on the basis of determination of tenancy, such suit is
governed by Art.67 alon

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