LexTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. versus KAILASH CHANDRA KAPUR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.
v.
KAILASH CHANDRA KAPUR AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 29, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Lease-{}ovemment land-Bequest of lease-hold right by lessee in
favour of a stranger-Pennissibility of-Lease for 999 years granted by
Govemment-Lessee executed a will bequeathing demised land in favour of
C a stranger-Death of lessee-Thereafter legatee obtained probate of will and
applied for mutation of his name in record as lessee-Rejection of muta-
tion-Wlit-Direction by High Court to mutate the name of legatee as
lessee-Order confim1ed by Division Bench-Appeal-Held, it is settled law
that though lease hold interest may be bequeathed by a testamentary disposi-
tion, the landlord is not bound by it nor a stranger be tTUsted as tenant against
D the u11willing landlord-But in the covenants of the lease deed there was no
e).press prohibition against bequest in favour of a stranger-The High Court,
therefore, has not committed any manifest error of law warranting inter-
ference-The object of assignment of the Govemment land in favour of the
lessee is to provide him right to residence-If any such transfer is made
E co11trary to the policy, obviously, it would be defeati11g the public purpose-But
it. would be open to the Govemment to regulate by appropriate covenants in
the lease deed or appropriate statutory orders as per law or to make a law in
this behalf.-
Dr. Anant Trimbak Sabnis v. Vasant Pratap Pa11dit, AIR (1980) Born.
F 69 and Bhavarlal Labhcha11d Shah v. Kanaiyalal Nathalal llltawala, [1986]
1 sec 571, held inapplicable.
G
· Gia11 Devi Ana11d v. Jeevan Kumar, [1985] 2 SCC 683, referred to.
Constitutio11 of India, 1950: Articles 19(J)(e) and 39(b).
Object of grant of Govemment la11d is to effectuate right to residence--
Material resources of community-Distribution by State-Object is to effec-
tuate the mandate of the Co11stitutio11.
H
Words and Phrases-
11
.Assign
1
~ "Person
11 and
11Transfer
1LMeaning of.
398
STAlEv. K.C. KAPUR
399
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15703 of A
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.1.96 of the Calcutta High
Court in A. No. 183 of 1995.
. V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, H.K. Puri and Rajesh B
Srivastava for the Appellants.
D.P. Gupta, Sr. Adv., Jaideep Gupta, A.P. Agarwala and Ms. Radha
Rangaswamy for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
c
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division D
Bench of the Calcutta High Court, made on January 19, 1996 in Appeal
No. 182/95.
The admitted facts are that a lease for 999 years was granted by the
Governor of West Bengal to one Tapan Kumar Mullick on July 28, 1983
E
assigning a plot of land No.CL-104 in Section II admeasuring 4.195 con-
ttahs in Bindhannagar (Salt Lake) in Calcutta. The lessee had executed a
Will in favour of the first respondent, a stranger to the family on July 22,
1992 of the lease-hold premises. The lessee died on May 22, 1993. There-
after, the first respondent had applied for and was granted without any
contest by the legal representatives of the lessee the probate to the Will by F
order of the Court dated May 19, 1994. It would, therefore, be obvious that
the bequest was after receipt of consideration. Therefore, the legatee had
applied for mutation of his name in the record as lessee which was objected
to and met with rejection. As a consequence, the respondent had filed writ
petition ;.,der Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge G
directed to mutate the name of the first respondent as a lessee under the
testamentary disposition made by the original lessee which was confirmed
by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Appeal No. 183/95 by
judgment dated January 19, 1996 Thus, this appeal by special leave.
Shri V.R. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General, has con- H
400
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A tended that clauses 7, 8 and 12 of the indenture of the lease should be read
together which manifest the intention that the lease was for the enjoyment
of leasehold right of the demised site or a building constructed thereon
either oy the lessee or his legal representatives and one among them alone
should be made responsible to and answerable to the lessor-appellant, the
B Government of West Bengal. It prohibited sub-letting or transfer without
pExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.