'Breach Of Multiple Terms & Conditions Of Lease': SC Upholds Dismissal Of Suit Filed By Lessee Challenging Resumption Proceedings
|The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a suit filed by the lessee challenging the resumption proceedings.
The Orissa State had filed an appeal against the order of the Orissa High Court by which its second appeal was dismissed and consequently the judgment and decree was passed in favour of the other.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar observed, “The reliance placed by the respondents on the judgement of the High Court of Orissa in Shankarlal Verma and Others v Smt. Uma Sahu and 23 Others (supra) would not come to their rescue as the terms and conditions of the lease have been squarely breached and not adhered to by the lessees in the present case. As such the lease came to be determined in the present case even though the lease deed does not provide anywhere that upon expiry of the term, the lease shall be determined.”
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared on behalf of the appellant while Advocate Fereshte D. Sethna appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The suit property was originally leased in favour of original lessee for 30 years commencing and the said lease was due to expire in September 1935. In October 1935, the original lessee applied for renewal of the lease which was referred as Lease Renewal Case. Above being the situation, the original lessee expired in June 1941 leaving behind his two sons, his wife, and his daughter-in-law as his legal heirs. A substitution petition was filed by the legal heirs of original lessee and subsequently in January 1944, the lease was renewed and a fresh lease deed was executed in favour of the legal heirs of the original lessee, for a further period of 30 years. The said lease agreement executed in favour of the legal heirs of the original lessee expired in September 1965 and in December 1972, one of the lessee preferred an application for renewal of the lease.
The Revenue Officer, Puri, Orissa directed the case records to be forwarded to Tahsildar, Puri for enquiry and report and pursuant to it, the Officer, the Tahsildar after conducting field verification, submitted a report to the Collector, Puri indicating that the structures over the suit property were dilapidated and that outsiders had occupied the house and consequently, the Tahsildar suggested for initiation of resumption proceedings. Pursuant to the same, Balu Resumption Case was registered. The Collector after considering the report of the Tahsildar, determined the lease by observing that the lessee had violated the terms of the lease agreement under clause 9 & 20 as prescribed under the Bihar and Orissa Government Estates Manual, 1919 and directed the lessee to surrender the lease hold land within 30 days from the date of notice. Accordingly, notice was issued to the lessee. Subsequently, the Collector after visiting the site and noting that the building was in utter state of disrepair, passed an order in 1976 to take physical possession of the land and remove the standing structures. The Tahsildar took over the physical possession of the lease hold land along with the building.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts noted, “… the legal heirs of the original lessee did not take steps for renewal by filing an application, much less 3 months prior to the expiration of the term as required under clause 14. On the other hand, such renewal was sought only on 23.12.1972, that too by one of the lessees that is Mr. Nalininath Mitra by filing an application for renewal of the lease which undisputedly is not adjudicated or disposed of till date. For this reason, we have opined that the State would be at liberty to consider the said application on its own merits and as rightly stated by Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State that same would be considered on its merits.”
The Court said that the impugned judgement of the High Court cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. It, therefore, directed the State to consider the pending renewal application within six months.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and confirmed the order of the Trial Court.
Cause Title- State of Orissa v. Santi Kumar Mitra & Another (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 402)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta and AOR Shibashish Misra.
Respondents: Advocates Fereshte D. Sethna, Anuradha Dutt, Ameya Pant, Mohit Tiwari, Arkaprava Dass, and AOR B. Vijayalakshmi Menon.