LexRAJA DHRUV DEV CHAND versus HARMOHINDER SINGH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
r
G
ff
-·
RAJA DHRUV DEV CHAND
v.
HARMOHINDER SINGH & ANR.
March 1, 1968
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.]
Contract Act, s. 56-Doctrine of frustralion, if applies, to lease$ of
agricultural land.
The appellant obtained lease of a land in the undivided Punjab and
carried on agricultural operations in it.
Following the partition Of India
and allotment of the t«ritory in which the lands were situate to Pakistan
tJic appellant migrated to India. The appellant commenced an action for
a decree for refund of the rent on the plea that the l'Onsideration for tbe
lease failed, beoauSe the covenants of the lease had become impossible
of performance as a fflluit of communal riots in that locality and the in-
ability of non·muslims to continue to mide in that area. The claim was
decreed but the High Court reversed the decree.
Dismissina the ftP,peal
this ~urt,
HELD: Where the propeny leased is not destroyed or rendered sub-
stantially and permanently unfit, the lessee cannot avoid that lease even
'if be does not or is unable to use the land for purposes for which it is
let to him. Under a lease of land there is a transfer of right to enjoy that
land. If any material part of the propeny be wholly
destroyed or
rendered substantially and pcrman~ntly unfit for the purpose for which it
was let out, because of fire, tempest, flood, violence of an army or a mob,
or other irresistible force, the lease may, at the option of the lessee, be
avoided. This rule is incorporatod in s. 108(e) of the Transfer of Property
Act and applies to leases of land to which the Tran:sfer of Property Act
applies, and the principle thei'eof applies to agricultural leases and to
leases in areas to which the Transfer of Property Act is not extend!>!.
{345 D-F]
In the present case the relation between the appellant and the reopan-
dents did not rest in contract. It is !'rue that the representative Of the res-
pandents-owners had accepted the tender of the apPe}lant and had granted
him a lease on agreed terms. But the rights of the parties did not after the
lease was aranted rest in contract. By s. 4 of the Transfer of Property
Act the chapters and sections of the Transfer of Property Act which relate
to contracts are to be taken as part of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. That
oection however cannot be read as enacting that the provisions of the Con-
1lact Act are to be read into the Transfer of Property Act. There is a
clear distincton between a completed conveyance and an executory contract,
and events which discharge a contract do not invalidate a concluded
transfer. [342 E-HJ
Granting that the parties at the date of the lease did not cootemplate
that there may be riots in the area rendering it unsafe for the apPe}lant tO
carry on cultivation or that the crops grown by him may be looted, there
was no covenant in the lease that in the event of, the appellant being
unable to remain in poasession and to cultivate the land and tO collect the
crops, he will not be liable to pay the rent. Inability of the appellant to
cultivate the land or to collect the crops becall!e Of widespread riots can-
not in the event that transpinod clothe him with the right to claim refund
of the rent paid, [343 0-EJ
,
340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968] 3 S.C.R.
Paradlne v. laM, (1647) Aleyn. 26, Denny Mott end Dickson Ltd. v.
lmnes B. Fraser & Co. Ltd. [19441 A.C.
265,
Satybrata Ghose v.
Mugneeram Bangur & Co. & Anr. [19541 S.C.R. 310, Abdul Hashem
& Anr. v. Balahari Monda! & Ors. A.J.R. 1952 Cal. 380 Tarabai Jivanlal
Parekh v. Lela Padamchand A.1.R. 1950 Bom. 89, Alanduraiappar Koil
Chithakkadu b,v its Trustee M. Ramananda Nainar & Ors. v. T. S. A.
Hamid and Anr, A.1.R. 1963 Mad. 94, Sri Amuruvi Perumal Dew:stlta-
nam v. K. R. Sabapathi Pillai & Anr. A.LR. 1962 Mad. 132 and Jnder
Pershad Singh v. Campbell, L.1.R. 7 Cal. 474, referred to.
Parshotam Das Shankar Da.• v. Municipal Committee, Batala A.I.R.
1949 E.P. 301, overruled.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 407 of
1965.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 23,
1959 of the Punjab High Court in R.F.A. No. 143 of 1952.
Vikram Chand Mahajan and Hardev Singh, for the appellant.
B. P. Malieshwari, Sobhag Mal Jain and R. K. Maheshwari,
for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, .J. The appellant obtained from the Court of Wards,
Dada Siba Estate, a lease of five squares of land in TaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.