SIVAYOGESWARA COTTON PRESS DEVANGERE AND OTHERS versus M PANCHAKSHARAPPA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1962] 3 S.C.R. 876 · Decided: 27-09-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1961 
Sc;tunhtr 27. 
• 
876 
SUPREME COURT REPORT~ 
(19112) 
SIVAYOGESWARA COTTON PRESS 
DEV ANG ERE AXD OTHERS 
' 
v . 
..'IL l'ANCHAKSHARAPPA AND ANOTHEll 
(B. P. Sn:n.~. C. J., P. B. GAJENI>!tAGADKAH aml 
RAGIIL"BAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
/,east-Oonstruction-Le81'1t:t: taki11y leaee of agricultural la1u:i 
for uuildin9 purpase .. -'f'erm.,, if crealt a permanent tmancy. 
'fhe material rcrrns of the lease in controversy provided 
lhal for the first 20 years the lessee was to pay a fixecl rent of 
Its. 350/- every year in advance and if he removed Ins faelory 
within that period he would still ha,·e lo pay the said rent for 
,• 
the t\venty years retaining his right to possession; that there-
after he '"·ou!d be free to continue the lease as long as he 
~ 
liked subject to the payment of the annual rent of Rs. 400;-
for the first IO years and thereafter of Rs. 500/- per year, 
\vith the right to terminate the lease at any time and the 
lessor would not have the right to call upon him to give up 
posses~.ion at any time as long as he , .. •anted to keep the land 
for his purposes observing the terms of the agreement; that 
the lc.'5eC would be entitled to raise buildings, godowns, facto· 
ries, b11nglo\\·s or any other structures as he desired; that the 
lessor \\'ould pay the annual land assessment to the Govern .. 
1nent and the lessee \\'ould pay any fines and taxes imposed by r,. 
the Govern1nent for using agricultural JanU for building 
purposes; that the lessee \\'Ould be free to sublet or re-let \Vith· 
out affecting the terms an<l conditions of the lease and that 
the heirs, executors> administrators, successors and assigns of 
the lessee as much as those of the lessee would remain bound 
by the lease. 
'"\ftcr more than l\\'Cnty years had elapsed since the lease, 
\vhich \'tas a registered one, had been executed bet,vecn the...,. 
predecessors in-interest of the parties, the respondent \Vho • 
succeeded to the original lessor's title, brought the suit, out of 
, .. ·hich the present appeal arose, for ejcctment of the assignee 
of the lessee's interest on the ground that the lease created a 
tenancy at ,,·ill and stood determined on service of notice to 
quit. 
• 
The trial court and tho court of first appeal found in 
favour of the respondent and decreed the suit. The High Court 
in second appeal confirmed the decree but relying on a decision><'""' 
of the Bombay High Court in JJavasaheb \'. IVut Patent Co, 
Ltd. I.L.R. [19541 !lorn 
448, held that after the lapse of 
the twenty years the lease \ .. ·as one for an indefinite period and 
could cnure only during the lifetime of the lessee and ruch 
.. 
' 
3 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
877 
assignees as had. been accepted by the original lessor and since 
the present assignee was not one of them he acquired no right 
under the lease. 
Held, that the lease, read as whole and properly construed, 
created a permanent tenancy and not a tenancy at will or one 
for an indefinite period valid only 
during the life of the 
lessee. 
It was not correct to say that the stipulation granting the 
lessee the right to surrender the lease at any time after the 
first t\venty years gave to the lessor, in the absence of such a 
provision in the lease itself, the right to call upon the lessee to 
at quit any time or that the stipulation was inconsistent with 
a permanent tenancy. The presumption attaching to a lease 
for building purposes for no fixed period, therefore, was not 
weakened in the instant case. 
JanakiNathRayv.DinaNathKundu, (1931) 35C.W.N. 
982 and Babaa Lekhraj Ray v. Kunhya Singh, (1877) L.R. 4 
I.A. 233, referred to. 
Babasaheb v. West Patent Ca., Ltd., l.L.R. 1954 Born. 448, 
distinguished. 
Nava/ram v. Javerilal, (1905) 7 Born. L.R. 401, l'rw,ad,, 
Nath Ray v. Srigabind Chau·dhry, (1905) I.L.R. 32 Cal. 648, 
Forbes v. Ilanuman Bhagat, (1923) I.L.R. 2 Pat. 452 and 
Commissioner of I ncome.-tax v. Maharajadhiraj Kumar V ishesh-
war Singh, (1939) l.L.R. 18 Pat. 805, discussed. 
Ileld, further, that it is always open to a lessee of any 
discription to surrender his lease~hold interest to the lessor by 
mutual consent. It is not necessary in law that there should be 
such con~ent at the time when the surrender is made. 
Since in the instant case, the surrender after the lapse of 
twenty years had in terms been agreed to by the parties and 
that stipulation was for the benefit of the lessee, it could not be 
construed as in derogation of his right to a permanent 
tenancy. 

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