Municipal Council, Udaipur versus Mahendra Kumar

c Enhancement of licence fee - Shop belonging to Municipal Council - Given for 11 months under an agreement -After expiry period, notice to occupant offering him to occupy premises on higher amount - Suit for perpetual injunction by occupant to restrain the owner from enhancing the amount D and from getting him evicted - HELD: Property being of local authority, High Court wrongly considered the agreement to be a lease overlooking the provisions of Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959 - Besides, in view of s. 38 of Specific Relief Act, after contract is determined, suit for specific performance is not E^{maintainable-}^{Inthe interestof justice rent enhanced as} specified in judgment - Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 38 - Deeds and Documents - Interpretation of

¶14

The appellant-Municipal Council gave a shop to the F respondent for 11 months on a monthly payment of Rs.175/- under an agreement dat~d 8.11.1980. The appellant issued a notice dated 6.6.1986 making an offer to the respondent to occupy the suit premises on payment of Rs.6,000/- per year. The respondent filed a suit, G inter alia, for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from enhancing the rent and getting the premises vacated. The trial court decreed the suit. The first appellate court modified the decree by allowing a one time 10% increase of the a'mount, and enhancement, if any, thereafter by H 552

¶15

),..

~

,_

f >-

.

H

553

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, UDAIPUR v. MAHENDRA KUMAR

¶23

~ '

¶24

consent of the respondent. The High Court dismissed the A second appeal.

~ -4.

-4 _.,

'x

In the appeal filed by the Municipal Council, it was contended for the appellant that the property being of the local authority and the Fajasthan Rent and Premises (Control of Rent and !viction) Act, 1950 not being applicable to the suit premises, the High Court erred in enlarging the scope of the dispute as to whether the agreement was a licence or lease and holding that the appellant unilaterally increased the rent.

¶29

B

¶30

c

¶31

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

¶32

HELD: 1.1 The property being of th.e local authority, the Rent Control Act did not have any application. The High Court considered the agreement to be a lease overlooking the fact that under the Rajasthan Municipality D Act, 1959, no lease could be made without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules made hereunder. [para 13-14] [558-F, G]

¶33

1.2 It is significant that validity of the notice dated. 6.6.1986 fixing the rent was not challenged in the suit. The^E said notice contained a reference and was said to have been based on the order No.F5(293)LB/77/2183-2730 dated 10.8.83 of the Local Self Government which permitted fixing of rent in a particular manner. It was not the stand of the respondent that the order of the Local F Self Government was not binding and/or that the same was without any authority; [para 9-1 O] [557-B, G]

¶34

1.3 It is to be noted that even the original agreement in clause 8 permitted the Council to issue such orders from time to time in relation to the conditions. Once there^G is no dispute about the power of enhancement, the question of enhancing the rent once by 10% and thereafter to enhance it on consent of both the parties is clearly without any foundation. Since the power of enhancement has been considered on the basis of clause H

¶35

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 5 S.C.R.

554

> •

¶40

,... Po

¶41

A 8, the question of restraining it to a one-time exercise is clearly without any foundation as the clause itself permits issue of orders "from time to time". [para 16-17] [559-8, C, D, E]

¶42

~

¶43

In the background of the scope of Section 38 of B the Specific Relief Act, the first appellate court and the High Court were not justified in granting relief to the respondent. There is no dispute that the plaintiff can seek for performance only of an agreement which is subsisting. The plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for c specific performance after the contract is determined. [para 12, 17] [559-E, F; 558-8-C]

¶44

Percept O'mark (India) (P) Ltd. v Zaheer Khan and Anr. 2006 (4) sec 227 - relied on.

¶45

D 3. The controversy can be looked at from another angle. The agreement was for a period of 11 months. For continuance, a fresh agreement was required to be entered into. If no agreement existed between the parties, the question of unilateral possession does not arise. E^{[para15,17] [559-A, D-E]}

¶46

In the normal course, fixation of rent would have been left to the authorities; but, considering the long passage of time while deciding the question of law, interest of justice would be best served if the rent is F^{enhanced to Rs.1,000/-from 1.1.2007 and Rs.700/-for} the previous three years. An agreement on the aforesaid terms shall be duly entered into by the parties. [para 17] [559-F, G]

¶47

)..

¶48

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2546 G of 2004.

¶49

From the final Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2000 of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 393 of 1999.

' ....-

WITH

H

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, UDAIPUR v. MAHENDRA 555 KUMAR [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶54

Civil Appeal No. 2547 of 2004.

¶55

A

¶56

Sushi! Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Sarad Singhania and Christi Jain for the Appellant.

¶57

Arun K. Sinha for the Respondent.

¶58

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶59

B

¶60

--4.

¶61

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in two second appeals. The appeals were preferred by the appellant questioning correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below.

¶62

c

¶63

Factual position which is almost undisputed in both the cases needs to be noted in brief and is as follows:

¶64

¶65

...

¶66

For the sake of convenience the facts situation in Civil Appeal No.2546 of 2004 (Municipal Council, Udaipur v. Mahendra Kumar) is reflected .

¶67

D

¶68

The respondent as plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant seeking following reliefs:

¶69

,,.._

¶70

I ~

¶71

"a) That a decree for permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to the E effect that the defendant should recover rent at the rate of Rs.175/- (rupees one hundred seventy five) per month from the plaintiff fixed before coming into being of the relationship of lessee and lessor between the plaintiff and the defendant and apart from this not to increase the rent F unilaterally, not to recover the late fee, nor recover the rent by increasing the same, nor get the shops vacated forcibly from the plaintiff, nor dispossess him from the disputed shops nor create any sort of obstacle in his business, neither do such acts itself nor through its seNants, agents G or any officer nor allow them to do the same."

¶72

E

¶73

F

¶74

For the purpose of the claim respondent relied on an agreement dated 8.11.1980. The agreement had been executed describing that it was based on a license and was for a limited period of 11 months. According to the appellant the license

¶75

H

¶76

SUPREME COURT REPORTS '

[2008] 5 S.C.R.

556

* '

A automatically stood terminated on expiry of the period. Thereafter no time was extended by the defendants. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants were accepting the rent regularly. By notice dated 6.6.1986 which was challenged in the suit an offer was made to occupy the property on payment of Rs.6,000/- per year. Stand

¶81

B ' of the respondent was that he was entitled to occupy the premises by payment of rent or license fee of Rs.175/- as agreed to in the agreement dated 8.11.1980 and which stood terminated by time. The Trial Court decreed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal to enhance once

¶82

C by 10% and thereafter to seek the consent of the respondent if there was to be any enhancement.

¶83

High Court dismissed the second appeal. The order of the High Court is challenged in this appeal.

¶84

According to the learned counsel for the appellant0 corporation the High Court enlarged the scope of dispute and went on to decide as to whether the agreement was a license or lease. It is submitted that property was that of the local authority and, therefore, Rajasthan Rent and Premises (Control of Rent E Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short 'Rent Control Act') unilaterally does not apply to the facts of the present case. It was pointed out that the respondent can be evicted from the suit premises by giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short 'TP Act') where the lease did not subsist and the respondent had not occupied or continued the same property. F The High Court and the First Appellate Court erroneously came to the conclusion that the appellant again increased the rent unilaterally. There was no question of any bilateral agreement for fixation of new rent as a person occupying property would never agree to enhance and would continue to remain in the G property for any length of time at a rate fixed years back. The conclusion that it can be enhanced once is without any legal foundation. It was pointed out that even if it is assumed that the agreement subsists, clauses 3 and 8 permitted the appellant to unilaterally alter the conditions by way of orders which have to H be complied with by the respondent and for a period of 11

557

A

D

E

F

G

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, UDAIPUR v, MAHENDRA KUMAR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶92

--(

¶93

months renew for further fresh term.

¶94

-(

¶95

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the respondent is willing to pay at such rate as may be fixed in accordance with law.

¶96

At the outset has to be noticed that the validity of the B notice was not challenged in the suit. Notice dated 6.6.1986 contained a reference to the order No.F5(293)LB/77/2183-2730 dated 10.8.83 of the Local Self Government which permitted fixing of rent in a particular manner. According to the learned counsel, the notice for fixing of rent was based on the aforesaid c order of the Local Self Government of the State.

¶97

It was not the stand of the respondent that the order of the Local Self Government was not binding and/or that the same was without any authority. Clauses 3 and 8 of the agreement are also relevant. They read as follows:

¶98

,._

¶99

'.;(

¶100

"3. That the said agreement shall be deemed to have been executed for eleven months and for further renewal the licensee shall have to move an application one month before, which shall be considered by the Council and if found property further renewal shall be made. The shop shall be handed over in the same condition in which it has been taken and shall not make any alterations therein nor shall cause any damage."

¶101

That apart from the said conditions in connection with this shop the Council shall also issue other orders from time to time, which shall also be complied with by the licensee."

¶102

The suit was for permanent injunction, in terms of Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'Specific Relief Act'). Section 38 reads as under:

¶103

4

¶104

"38. Perpetual injunction when granted - (1) subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.

¶105

H

¶106

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 5 S.C.R.

558

)•

I _...

A

(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter II.

¶113

(3) )()()( )()()( XXX:.'

¶114

B 12. An interesting question arises as to whether in the absence of the subsisting agreement a decree for specific performance can be granted. There is no dispute that the plaintiff can seek for performance only an agreement which is subsisting. As was noted by this Court in Percept D'mark (India) (P) Ltd. v. C Zaheer Khan and Anr (2006 (4) SCC 227), the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for specific performance after the contract is determined. In the aforesaid case it was noted as follows:

¶115

o

¶116

"60. We have perused the contract in detail. The terms of the contract were expressly limited to 3 years from 30.10.2000 to 29.10.2003, unless extended by mutual agreement, and all obligations and services under the contract were to be performed.

¶117

Clause 31 (b) was also to operate only during the term i.e. from the conclusion of the first negotiation period under E clause 31(a) on 29.7.2003 till 29.10.2003. This Respondent 1 has scrupulously complied with. So long as clause 31 (b) is read as being operative during the term of the agreement i.e. during the period from 29.7.2003 till 29.10.2003, it may be valid and enforceable. However, F the moment it is sought to be enforced beyond the term and expiry of the agreement, it becomes prima facie void, as rightly held by the Division Bench."

¶118

F

¶119

It is to be noted that the property being of the local authority the Rent Control Act did not have any application.

¶120

G

¶121

The High Court considered the agreement to be a lease overlooking the fact that under the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959 (in short 'Municipal Act') no lease can be made without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules made H hereunder.

¶122

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, UDAIPUR v MAHENDRA KUMAR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶123

559

¶124

---..;

¶125

The controversy can be looked at from another angle. For a period of 11 months there was no attempt to modify the rent fixed under the contract. On the expiry of the period a fresh agreement has to be entered into. That has to be on agreed terms. In that view of the matter the question of enhancement of rent unilaterally does not arise.

¶126

A

¶127

B

¶128

It is to be noted that even the original agreement in clause 8 permitted the Council to issue such orders from time to tim.e in relation to the conditions. If the view expressed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court is accepted then the power to issue orders from time to time in relation to the C conditions becomes redundant. Once there is no dispute about the power of enhancement, the question of enhancing the rent once by 10% and thereafter to enhance it on consent of both the parties is clearly without any foundation.

¶129

In the circumstances it is to be held that the agreement^D was for a period of 11 months. For continuance a fresh agreement was required to be entered into. If no agreement existed between the parties, the question of unilateral possession does not arise. Since the power of enhancement has been considered on the basis of clause 8, the question of E restraining it to a one-time exercise is clearly without any foundation as the clause itself permits issue of orders "from time to time". Additionally, in the background of the scope of Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, the First Appellate Court and the High Court were not justified in granting relief to the respondent. F In the normal course we would have left fixation of rent to the authorities. Considering the long passage of time while deciding the question of law, we feel interest of justice would be best seNed if the rent is enhanced to Rs.1,000/- from 1.1.2007 and Rs. 700/- for the previous three years. The agreement on the G aforesaid terms shall be duly entered into by the parties.

¶130

The appeals are accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.

¶131

R.P.

¶132

Appeals disposed of. H

Municipal Council, Udaipur v. Mahendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Council, Udaipur v. Mahendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Golla Yelugu Govindu versus State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanagavalliammal and Ors. versus R. Balasubramanian

The Government of Goa versus M/S. A.H. Jaffar and Sons and Anr.

Suresh Kumar versus the State of Himachal Pradesh

Poona Timber Merchants and Saw Mill Owners Association versus State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S Malnad Areca Processing & Mktg. Ltd. versus the Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment) and Ors.