H S RIKHY MANOHAR LAL MR P GOYLE Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE
LAWS(SC)-1961-9-26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
September 13,1961
H.S.RIKHY,MANOHAR LAL,MR.P.GOYLE
Appellant
VERSUS
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SURAJKARAN VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1967-11-5] [REFERRED TO]MILAP CHANDRA JAIN VS. ROOP KISHOR [LAWS(ALL)-2014-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTI SARKAR VS. DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-8-71] [REFERRED TO]
VASHISHTHA NARAYAN JHA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
R D GUPTA VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [LAWS(DLH)-1970-3-11] [REFERRED]
RAJA RAM VS. MANOHAR LAL [LAWS(J&K)-1971-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH DEVI VS. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(J&K)-2001-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMARI SONI VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-1971-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
SEEMA SHARMA VS. LOKAYUKTA HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2013-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN HOUSING FACTORY LTD. VS. DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [LAWS(DLH)-1993-7-78] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR SAHKARI AVAS SAMITILTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-9-238] [REFERRED TO]
ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. CHANDRA RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-242] [REFERRED TO]
D JAIRAJ VS. JEYPORE SUGAR CO LTD [LAWS(ORI)-1977-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
GOPI KISHAN AND OTHERS VS. NARSING DAS AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-1979-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
BENJONGTOSHI VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2019-4-95] [REFERRED TO]
THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD. VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(DLH)-2016-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST VISAKHAPATNAM VS. BIHAR ALLOY STEELS LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-1991-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAV PRASAD VS. BRIJBHUSHAN [LAWS(MPH)-2006-1-41] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU CHAUDHARY VS. SHRI HIRA LAL KAPOOR [LAWS(DLH)-1985-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
LACHHMAN BHATIA VS. N K MEHRA [LAWS(DLH)-1998-9-121] [REFERRED]
SARLA AHUJA VS. KUNDAN LAL [LAWS(DLH)-2003-3-114] [REFERRED]
RIKHI RAM VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AMRITSAR [LAWS(P&H)-1981-11-72] [REFERRED]
ALI KOYA VS. NARAYANAN NAIR [LAWS(KER)-1968-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
BADRUDDIN MOHAMEDALLY VS. T AND B DEHGANWALA ESTATE [LAWS(MAD)-1991-10-29] [REFERRED TO]
PEM EDEN BHUTIA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-1997-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH SAO VS. BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(PAT)-1980-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. S.B. ASSOCIATES AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM VS. RAJESHWAR DAYAL [LAWS(MPH)-1995-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
GANGARAM VS. MUNICIPAL COUNSEL NAGAR PALIKA NEEMUCH [LAWS(MPH)-1992-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH PRASAD VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [LAWS(MPH)-1994-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
ANTHONY VS. KC ITTOP AND SONS [LAWS(SC)-2000-7-15] [REFERRED]
P. BHASKARAN NAIR VS. K. SADASIVAN NAIR [LAWS(KER)-1989-11-47] [REFERRED TO]
ALISHA GUPTA VS. INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD VS. MOHANAN NAIR [LAWS(KER)-2013-5-128] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF CITY OF AMRAVATI VS. VEDANT SECURITY SERVICES [LAWS(BOM)-2005-6-67] [REFERRED TO]
BRIGHT FOOD INDS VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-1995-8-55] [REFERRED]
SHANTI DEVI VS. MELA RAM [LAWS(DLH)-1971-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
ADMINISTRATOR MUNICIPALITY, JAMMU VS. BEDI CHAND [LAWS(J&K)-1979-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
BHAIYA RAM HARGO LAL VS. MAHAVIR PRASAD MURARI LAL MAHAJAN [LAWS(P&H)-1968-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
R RAMACHANDRA BHATTA VS. S S S A ASHRAM [LAWS(KAR)-1994-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT VS. SUBHASH SINDHI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY [LAWS(SC)-2013-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JAIPUR VS. SETH HAMEER MAL GOLECHA [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
SUNEETA BHARTI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-126] [REFERRED TO]
THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
DR VANITHA R VS. MINISTRY OF AYUSH & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-3-104] [REFERRED TO]
LOV RAJ KUMAR VS. MAJOR DAYA SHANKAR [LAWS(DLH)-1985-9-22] [REFERRED 22,23]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KHANNA VS. SHEELA RANI [LAWS(P&H)-1982-9-65] [REFERRED]
NIMBA YADAV BHOI VS. PRESIDENT STANDING COMMITTEE ZILLA PARISHAD [LAWS(BOM)-2001-9-101] [REFERRED TO]
PANNA LAL AND OTHERS VS. GYANESHWAR NATH GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-1970-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. ASIATIC RUBRO COMPLEX DEVELOPMENT AREA [LAWS(KER)-2022-11-215] [REFERRED TO]
AKHILENDU ARJARIA VS. BANARASIDAS [LAWS(MPH)-1996-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE VS. HARDA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(MPH)-1963-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMACHARAN RAGHUBAR PRASAD VS. SHEOJEE BHAI JAIRAM CHATTRI [LAWS(MPH)-1964-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ANDHRA BANK LTD [LAWS(MAD)-1975-12-24] [REFERRED TO: 1962 -3 SCR 604 : .]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE PUNDRI VS. BAJRANG RAO NAGRATH [LAWS(P&H)-2005-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
DHAN RAJ VS. BRIJESH KUMAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
JAYARAM VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(KAR)-2000-11-103] [REFERRED TO]
PIECO ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRICALS LTD VS. TRIBENI DEVI [LAWS(CAL)-1989-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKRISHNA MISSION VS. PARIMAL BIKASH BISWAS [LAWS(CAL)-2003-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
ZARINE MANGESH EDEKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
S A BUILDERS LIMITED VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2000-5-54] [REFERRED]
SHYAM KISHORE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1995-7-55] [REFERRED]
ADILAKSHMI VS. HUMERA BEGUM [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-762] [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD BUNDI [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR SINGH VS. GANGA SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1993-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
BIMAL CHAND VS. D C M LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1997-4-66] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND PRAKASH SOLANKI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
RUMA CHAKRABORTY VS. SUDHA RANI BANERJEE [LAWS(SC)-2005-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
ATHUP LEPCHA VS. A K YADAV [LAWS(SIK)-1995-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
PADIA TIMBER COMPANY(P) LIMITED VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
BANARASIDAS VS. RAMKRISHNA [LAWS(MPH)-1994-5-9] [RELIED ON]
T NALINI VS. SRI SAI BABA BAKTHA SAMAJAM [LAWS(MAD)-2008-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
PAYYANNUR CO OP EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. NARAYANAN [LAWS(KER)-2000-7-50] [REFERRED TO]
FATHIMABI VS. MEHBOOB [LAWS(KAR)-1984-6-34] [REFERRED TO]
SIRAJUDDIN VS. PREM VANTI [LAWS(DLH)-1967-5-13] [REFERRED 7.]
MATHER AND PLATT INDIA LTD VS. J THOMAS AND COMPANY PVT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1999-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
ALISHA GUPTA VS. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-229] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY, TDB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-2013-5-110] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR PATHAK VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-12-243] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL JALIL SON OF LATE HABIB ULLAH VS. SPECIAL JUDGE E.C.ACT/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-254] [REFERRED TO]
AGI MUSIC SDN BHD AND ORS. VS. ILAIYARAJA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-683] [REFERRED TO]
M/S CHAIN SINGH MUNI LAL VS. COMMISSIONER, JALANDHAR DIVISION, JALANDHAR [LAWS(P&H)-2011-4-129] [REFERRED TO]
C R RAMAMURTHY IYER VS. IDOL OF ARULMIGHU JAMBUKESWARAR AKILANDESWARI TEMPLE [LAWS(MAD)-2000-1-98] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJ VS. CHANDRA RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-68] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH NANDA VS. BISHNU DALEI AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1974-6-18] [REFERRED TO]
M I BUILDERS PVT LIMITED VS. RADHEY SHYAM SAHU [LAWS(SC)-1999-7-65] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB TRAVEL COMPANY AHMEDABAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-1-38] [REFFERED TO 19]
CHARAN SINGH VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE RANIA [LAWS(P&H)-1996-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
P G AND SAWOO P LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1974-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
SANATAN ROY VS. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONERS OF DUM DUM MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1979-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
KANCHANBHAI KANBHAI TADVI VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF VADODARA [LAWS(GJH)-2001-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
ASIA RESORTS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(HPH)-2011-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
PRATYUSH NARNAWRE VS. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-135] [REFERRED TO]
A K T K M SANKARAN NAMBOODIRIPAD VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1963-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
SATTANATHASWAMY DEVASTHANAM VS. KALYANA SUNDARI AMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2020-1-498] [REFERRED TO]
K.RAVINDRAN VS. CHANCELLOR TAMIL UNIVERSITY [LAWS(MAD)-2019-12-400] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEV RAJ NANDA VS. P D AHUJA [LAWS(DLH)-1973-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
S BHAGWANT SINGH VS. JAGAN NATH [LAWS(DLH)-1975-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDNI CHOWK SARV VYAPAR MANDAL VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2005-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
JANAPADA SABHA SAGAR VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SAGAR [LAWS(MPH)-1978-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
THE MADRAS PIECE-GOODS MERCHANTS CHARITABLE TRUST BY ITS SECRETARY V.S. DEVANATHAN VS. MOOLCHAND GUPTA AND ANR. [LAWS(MAD)-1966-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
ST ISABLES HOSPITAL REP VS. A V MURUGAN [LAWS(MAD)-1999-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAN DAS VS. NIJI BAI [LAWS(RAJ)-1973-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA SINGH BHATI VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1997-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN SINGH VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE RANIA [LAWS(P&H)-1996-2-108] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS. SURJEET KAUR [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-108] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD PANCHKULA VS. UMED SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2006-4-202] [REFERRED TO]
SIBA PRASAD SAHOO VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1992-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
ZAFFRON TRUCK UNION KHREW PULWAMA VS. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
Mahesh Lal Agrawal VS. Union of India [LAWS(MPH)-1996-7-115] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MERCHANTS UNION REGD FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MARKET SUBZI MANDI DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1975-5-13] [REFERRED]
SURAJ PARKASH VS. GIRDHARI LAL [LAWS(J&K)-1973-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GR. BOMBAY & ANOTHER VS. M/S. KULKARNI & CO. & ANOTHER [LAWS(BOM)-1998-11-175] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. KULKARNI AND CO [LAWS(BOM)-1998-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
DIPSIKHA CHAKRABORTY VS. ARUN KANTI BASU AND SABITA BASU [LAWS(CAL)-2022-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPAL PRASAD R V VS. SALEHA BEGUM [LAWS(APH)-2001-8-148] [REFERRED TO]
ARATI PURAKAIT VS. SHYAMAPADA GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-2002-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HARI NATH YADAV [LAWS(ALL)-2008-1-80] [REFERRED TO]
SPORTINA EXIM PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2004-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA NATH MUKHERJEE VS. COMMISSIONERS OF BADURIA MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(CAL)-1966-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANT DHARSHI SHAH VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-1990-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
BABUBHAI HARGOVINDDAS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1969-4-5] [REFERRED]
CHITRA PUBLICITY COMPANY VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD [LAWS(GJH)-1986-1-1] [REFERRED]
CHOUDHARI PALKAJI VS. RUKMINI DEVI AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-10-33] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Sinha, C. J. -
(1.)The question for determination in these three appeals, on certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Punjab under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution, is whether the provisions of S. 8 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (XXXVIII of 1952) (which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act) apply to the transactions in question between the appellants in each case and the New Delhi Municipal Committee (which for the sake of brevity we shall call 'the Committee' in the course of this judgment).
(2.)It is necessary to state the following facts in order to bring out the nature and scope of the controversy. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the facts of each case separately for the purpose of these appeals. The Committee built in 1945 what is known as the Central Municipal Market Lodi Colony. This Market has 32 shops, with residential flats on 28 of them. In April 1945, the Committee, in pursuance of a resolution passed by it, invited tenders from intending bidders for those shops and premises. On receipt of tenders, the highest bidders were allotted various shops on rents varying from Rs. 135-8-0 to Rs. 520 per mensem. The allottees occupied the shops and the premises in accordance with the allotments made by the Committee and continued to pay the respective amounts which may be characterised as rents, without prejudice to our decision on the question whether it was legally a 'rent' because as will presently appear, one of the controversies between the parties is whether it is 'rent' within the meaning of the Act. Towards the end of 1952, 30 of the occupants filed applications under S. 8 of the Act praying for the fixation of standard rent in respect of the premises in their respective occupation. The Committee raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the aforesaid applications on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicants and the Committee, within the meaning of the Act. The Trial Court accordingly framed the following issue for determination in the first instance:
"Whether the relationship of tenant and landlord exists between the parties, therefore, those applications are competent and the Court has jurisdiction to fix the standard rent -
The learned Subordinate Judge, who dealt with these cases in the first instance came to the conclusion that the several applicants were tenants within the meaning of the Act, and that therefore, the applications were competent. The Committee moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, and the learned Chief Justice, sitting singly, referred those cases to be heard by a Division Bench, as they raised questions of general importance. The matter was thus heard by a Division Bench composed of G. D. Khosla and Dulat, JJ.) The High Court, by its judgment dated April 25, 1956, set aside the aforesaid finding of the Trial Court, but made no order as to costs. The High Court in an elaborate judgment, on an examination of the relevant provisions of the Act, came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, inasmuch as there was no letting'. there being no properly executed lease, and the doctrine of part performance was not attracted to the acts and circumstances of the case. For coming to the conclusion that there was no valid lease between the parties, the High Court relied upon the provisions of S. 47 of the Punjab Municipal Act (Punjab Act III of 1911). The High Court also negatived the contention that the Committee was estopped from questioning the status of the applicants as tenants, having all along admittedly accepted rent from them. The appellants moved the High Court and obtained the necessary certificates of fitness for coming up in appeal to this Court. The certificates of the High Court are dated October 28, 1957. That is how the matter has come before this Court.
(3.)It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the Transfer of Property Act does not apply to the transactions in question, and that, therefore, the High Court was not justified in insisting upon a registered lease, or even a written lease, executed between the parties. It was enough that the tenants in each case had given a written Kabuliyat from which the terms of the respective tenancies could be ascertained. It was also contended that the High Court was in error in relying upon the provisions of S. 47 of the Punjab Municipal Act which, it was contended, was subject to the provisions of the Act, in view of the overriding provisions of S. 38 of the Act. It was further contended that the definitions of 'landlord' (S. 2 (c)), of 'premises' (S. 2 (g)), and of 'tenant' (S. 2 (j)) in the Act were comprehensive enough to take in the transactions between the appellants and the Committee. Reference was also made to S. 3 of the Act to show that a public body like the Committee was not intended to be excluded from the operation of the Act.
(2.)It is necessary to state the following facts in order to bring out the nature and scope of the controversy. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the facts of each case separately for the purpose of these appeals. The Committee built in 1945 what is known as the Central Municipal Market Lodi Colony. This Market has 32 shops, with residential flats on 28 of them. In April 1945, the Committee, in pursuance of a resolution passed by it, invited tenders from intending bidders for those shops and premises. On receipt of tenders, the highest bidders were allotted various shops on rents varying from Rs. 135-8-0 to Rs. 520 per mensem. The allottees occupied the shops and the premises in accordance with the allotments made by the Committee and continued to pay the respective amounts which may be characterised as rents, without prejudice to our decision on the question whether it was legally a 'rent' because as will presently appear, one of the controversies between the parties is whether it is 'rent' within the meaning of the Act. Towards the end of 1952, 30 of the occupants filed applications under S. 8 of the Act praying for the fixation of standard rent in respect of the premises in their respective occupation. The Committee raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the aforesaid applications on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicants and the Committee, within the meaning of the Act. The Trial Court accordingly framed the following issue for determination in the first instance:
"Whether the relationship of tenant and landlord exists between the parties, therefore, those applications are competent and the Court has jurisdiction to fix the standard rent -
The learned Subordinate Judge, who dealt with these cases in the first instance came to the conclusion that the several applicants were tenants within the meaning of the Act, and that therefore, the applications were competent. The Committee moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, and the learned Chief Justice, sitting singly, referred those cases to be heard by a Division Bench, as they raised questions of general importance. The matter was thus heard by a Division Bench composed of G. D. Khosla and Dulat, JJ.) The High Court, by its judgment dated April 25, 1956, set aside the aforesaid finding of the Trial Court, but made no order as to costs. The High Court in an elaborate judgment, on an examination of the relevant provisions of the Act, came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, inasmuch as there was no letting'. there being no properly executed lease, and the doctrine of part performance was not attracted to the acts and circumstances of the case. For coming to the conclusion that there was no valid lease between the parties, the High Court relied upon the provisions of S. 47 of the Punjab Municipal Act (Punjab Act III of 1911). The High Court also negatived the contention that the Committee was estopped from questioning the status of the applicants as tenants, having all along admittedly accepted rent from them. The appellants moved the High Court and obtained the necessary certificates of fitness for coming up in appeal to this Court. The certificates of the High Court are dated October 28, 1957. That is how the matter has come before this Court.
(3.)It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the Transfer of Property Act does not apply to the transactions in question, and that, therefore, the High Court was not justified in insisting upon a registered lease, or even a written lease, executed between the parties. It was enough that the tenants in each case had given a written Kabuliyat from which the terms of the respective tenancies could be ascertained. It was also contended that the High Court was in error in relying upon the provisions of S. 47 of the Punjab Municipal Act which, it was contended, was subject to the provisions of the Act, in view of the overriding provisions of S. 38 of the Act. It was further contended that the definitions of 'landlord' (S. 2 (c)), of 'premises' (S. 2 (g)), and of 'tenant' (S. 2 (j)) in the Act were comprehensive enough to take in the transactions between the appellants and the Committee. Reference was also made to S. 3 of the Act to show that a public body like the Committee was not intended to be excluded from the operation of the Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.