Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1384 (MP)

Arun Kumar Ohri v. Municipal Council, Shivpuri

2006-12-05

SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2006
ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners praying for a relief that the respondents be directed to renew the 'Patta' of the land allotted to the petitioner vide Annexure P-4 and they may be directed to grant lease for another 51 years. Petitioners are also praying for quashing the order Annexure P-l whereby the Municipal Council has informed the petitioners that, as the petitioners have violated the terms of the lease deed they are taking steps for cancellation of lease and dispossession of the petitioners. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners were granted a lease for a period of 51 years vide document Annexure P-4 dated 18.1.1951. The Municipal Council has granted lease in favour of the petitioners for 51 years of 7 bighas of land on an annual rent of Rs.7/- per year. As per the condition No.2 it was agreed between the parties that on completion of 51 years of lease, the petitioners shall be entitled for renewal of lease for another 51 years. 3. Contention of the petitioners in this petition is that 51 years of lease was expired on 18.1.2002. According to the petitioners, they are entitled for renewal of lease for another 51 years and the respondents are not renewing the lease. Hence, respondents be directed to renew the lease in favour of the petitioners for another 51 years. 4. In reply to this argument learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as the petitioner has violated the Condition No.9 of the Original Lease Deed, the petitioners are not entitled for renewal of the lease. As per Condition No.9 petitioner cannot sell the land in question. However, he is free to construct a house and sell the house to any person and in that case the conditions of the lease shall be applied to the purchaser of the house also in the same manner. Thus, he has a right to sell only superstructure and not the land. 5. The question in this petition is whether the petitioners have violated the Condition No.9 or not. As per the respondents, as the petitioners are purchaser of the land and the land was sold by the lease holder Smt. Rajan Langar to one Shri Dr. Rajeev Kumar Dhingara and thereafter, Rajeev Kumar has sold the land in two portions vide sale deed Annexure P-9 and Annexure P-10. As per the respondents, as the petitioners are purchaser of the land and the land was sold by the lease holder Smt. Rajan Langar to one Shri Dr. Rajeev Kumar Dhingara and thereafter, Rajeev Kumar has sold the land in two portions vide sale deed Annexure P-9 and Annexure P-10. Thus, there is violation of Condition No.9 and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to renew lease deed. 6. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that intention of the parties in the present case was not to sell the land but he has merely sold the house and thus, he has not violated the terms of the contract. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Nagpur High Court in case of Balram Raoji Nasare v. Mahadeo Panduji [AIR (36) 1949 Nagpur 389] wherein the High Court has held that in construing a transaction one has to look beneath the verbiage and ascertain what are the real rights which are being transferred. Thus, as per the said judgment while interpreting a document this Court has to find out the real intention of the parties behind the transaction. 7. Another judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is in case of Trivenibai v. Leelabai [AIR 1955 Nagpur 170]. In para 12 of the said judgment the High Court has laid down the principle for construing a document and has held that it is a settled principle of construction of a deed that it must be read as a whole in order to discover the true intent and effect of the transaction. 8. There is no dispute about the proposition laid down by the aforesaid authorities and therefore, for finding out the real intention of the parties behind the transaction it is necessary for this Court to go through the sale deeds. 9. Annexure P-8 is the first sale deed dated 6.8.97. The decipher of the said document shows that the document is executed for sale of the house and the land situated within the boundary and in the internal page No.4 of the sale deed it is mentioned that the seller is transferring his entire rights over the land which is inside the boundary and he is transferring all the rights which he has got in the land. It is further mentioned that the seller has removed his possession and rights over the land in favour of the purchaser. 10. Annexure P-9 is another sale deed dated 14.3.1985. The recital of the deed for the sale of house and open land. From reading of internal page 2 of the said document it is clear that the seller in that case has sold half of the open land out of 7 bighas of land, which was initially granted on lease in favour of the seller while Annexure P-10 is the third sale deed. In the said sale deed the seller has transferred his right of remaining half part of the land in favour of the purchaser. 11. Thus, the entire land is transferred by the present petitioner by sale and thus, he has violated the terms of the lease deed. In such circumstances the respondents have rightly refused to renew the lease in favour of the present petitioner and has rightly passed the resolution taking legal action against the present petitioner. 12. In such circumstances no interference is called for in this petition, the petition is therefore dismissed.