THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS. versus CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 06-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 313 : 2025 INSC 36
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. 
v. 
Century Textiles and Industries Limited & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 6667 of 2023)
07 January 2025
[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the appellant-Corporation was bound to 
convey the lease in favour of the respondent in terms of s.51 of 
the Bombay Improvement Trust Transfer Act, 1925; and whether 
writ petition filed before the High Court sufferred from delays and 
laches and was liable to be dismissed as the cause of action had 
arisen in 1955 whereas the writ petition was filed in 2016 after a 
delay of 61 (sixty-one) years.
Headnotes†
Bombay Improvement Trust Transfer Act, 1925 – ss.48, 51 – 
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – s.527 – City of the 
Bombay Improvement Act, 1898 – s.32B – Poorer Classes 
Accommodation Scheme-PCAS – Default and determination 
of lease – Execution of conveyance – In 1918, PCAS approved 
for respondent no. 1 which provided for construction of 44 
Blocks of poorer class dwellings containing a total of 980 
rooms and 20 shops as a pre-condition for execution lease 
u/s.32G – Scheme duly notified – Respondent no. 1 constructed 
476 dwellings and 10 shops till 1925, as a part of the  
pre-condition for execution of lease – 1898 Act repealed by 
the Act of 1925 – Respondent no.1 applied to the Improvement 
Trust under the 1925 Act for alteration of the notified Scheme 
and the same was granted – According to the resolution, 
Block-B and Block-C was to be excluded – Block-B was 
conveyed to the respondent no.1 – Lease of Block-A for a 
period of 28 years granted to the company, which was to expire 
in 1955 – For 51 years, neither the appellant nor respondent 
no.1 initiated any proceedings against each other – In 2006, 
respondent No.1 served notice u/s.527 of the 1888 Act on the 
* Author
314
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
appellant that after expiry of lease period of 28 years, the said 
property ought to be conveyed to the respondent No.1 and, 
on failure to do so the respondent No.1 would be constrained 
to file a suit – However, no suit ever filed – Respondent no.1 
requested to execute formal deed of conveyance in 2014 and 
2016, however, no action taken – Respondent No.1 then filed 
writ petition in 2016 – High Court allowed the same directing 
the appellant to execute formal conveyance of plot in favour 
of the respondent No.1 – Sustainability: 
Held : Not sustainable – Terms and conditions of the lease 
agreement reveal no stipulation that on the expiry of the lease, 
after completion of 28 years, the appellants would be bound to 
convey the said land to respondent no.1 – Neither the Board 
Resolution nor the lease deed and neither the statutory framework 
in force imposed any obligation upon the appellant to execute 
a conveyance in favour of the respondent no.1 – High Court 
misinterpreted the same to be a condition incorporated in the lease 
deed for conveyance, on expiration of 28 years – Harmonious 
and contextual interpretation of ss.48(a) and 51(2) of the 1925 
Act, as well as the clear absence of any covenant to that effect 
in the lease deed, unequivocally demonstrates that no vested 
right to conveyance arose on the expiration of the lease – Rather 
than insisting that “shall convey” in s.51(2) invariably means an 
unconditional obligation, it is more appropriate to understand that it 
calls for conveyance only where the arrangement and compliance 
align with the statutory prerequisites – Absent any express statutory 
mandate or contractual stipulation, the claim for compulsory 
conveyance at the end of the lease term must fail – Respondent 
no.1 failed to take any active step in furtherance of getting such 
a conveyance executed at the end of the lease term – Thus, the 
appellants neither bound nor were under any legal obligations to 
convey the premises to the respondent no.1 – As regards delay 
and laches, no merit in the conduct of the respondent no. 1 where 
it deliberately chose to sit still on its rights for a long period of 
fifty-one years – Writ petition filed before the High Court in 2016 
clearly a route adopted to subvert the long delay of sixty-one 
years which cannot be condonable – View taken by the High 
Court in treating the petition to be not suffering from any delay 
and laches cannot be sustained – Furthermore, the preamble 
to the 1925 Act states that enactment was for constructing new 
[202

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