- (1.)
(2.) THE petitioner applied for seeking an eligibility certificate by way of an application made under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (now "the Trade Tax Act" ). THE eligibility certificate was granted with effect from July 20, 1992 taking the view that all conditions sine qua non for the grant of eligibility certificate had not been fulfilled on the date of first sale, viz. , September 23, 1989. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a review application and the Divisional Level Committee reiterated its earlier view on the review application, restricting the operation of the eligibility certificate with effect from July 20, 1992. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up to this Court. The contention of the petitioner is that an unregistered lease deed was executed by the father of the real owner of the premises, let out to the petitioner with effect from June 1, 1989 and that a registered lease deed was executed by the son (real owner) on March 29, 1990 which was made effective from June 1, 1989. In the registered lease deed it is clearly stated that the father while executing the unregistered lease deed had acted on behalf of the son (real owner), meaning thereby, that the act of the father was ratified by the son under the registered lease deed. The registered lease deed was got executed within a period of eleven months for which the unregistered lease deed could be executed. The question for consideration is whether after the act of the father having been ratified by the son (real owner), the registered lease deed dated March 29, 1990 can be said to be effective from June 1, 1989 from which dated it purports to have operated.
(3.) IN P. P. S. Electronics INdustries, Kanpur v. State of U. P. 1993 UPTC 853, a Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Om Prakash, J.) was a party, held that a lease deed which is registered on a later date will relate back to the date of execution and, therefore that would become operative from the date of execution though registered later. In Foujdar Kameshwar Dutt Singh v. Chanshyamdas (1987) Supp SCC 689, the High Court had found that Kameshwar Dutt Singh, though a major on the date when the suit property was sold by his elder brother to the plaintiff, was aware of the sale. It was the elder brother who was managing the property all the time with the active association and co-operation of the mother. Kameshwar Dutt Singh was not in a position to manage the land as he was elsewhere studying. Even after the sale, he allowed the plaintiff-purchaser to be in possession of the land for nearly seven years. In addition, he along with his brothers executed the documents by which they chose to affirm all the acts done by their elder brother, Satya Prakash Singh, who was actually managing their affairs. On those facts, the High Court held that a case of implied agency had been established. The Supreme Court in this background observed as under : ". . . . . . . . . . . . We are unable to take a different view in the matter. ";