Khanna, J. - (1.) THE questions as to whether the buildings constructed on lease -hold plots in New Delhi belong to the Government or to the persons who construct them and whether the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act apply to those buildings arise for determination in these four second appeals Nos. 22 -D, 23 -D, 24 -D and 25 -D of 1962 which are directed against the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal Delhi reversing on appeal the orders of the Controllers. This judgment would dispose of all the four appeals.
(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that each of the appellants is a tenant of shop situate in Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, under the respondent in that appeal, Appeal No. 22 -D relates to shop No. 21 and the agreed rent of that shop is Rs. 200/ - per mensem. Appeal No. 23 -D relates to shop No. 5 and its agreed rent is Rs. 215/ - per mensem. Appeal No. 24 -D relates to shop No. 25 and its agreed rent is Rs. 250/ - per mensem. Appeal No. 25 -D relates to shop No. 26 and its agreed rent is Rs. 220/ - per mensem. The above -mentioned shops were admittedly constructed in the year 1953 and 1954. The tenancy of the appellants of Shops in appeals Nos. 22 -D and 25 -D commenced on 1st of September, 1953, in appeal No. 23 -D on 1st of December, 1953 and in appeal No. 24 -D on 1st of November, 1953. The appellants filed applications before the Controller under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (Act No. 59 of 1958), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), praying for fixation of standard rent of the aforesaid shops on the allegation that the agreed rent was penal and excessive. The applications were resisted by the respondents inter alia on the plea that the premises in dispute belonged to the Government and so according to section 3 of the Act the applications were not maintainable. The Controllers held that the premises in dispute were not proved to belong to the Government and as such the applications for fixation of standard rent were maintainable. The respondents filed appeals against the orders of the Controllers and it was urged on their behalf that the premises in dispute belonged to the Government and as such the provisions of the Act did not apply to the premises. This contention was accepted by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal, accordingly, accepted the appeals and dismissed the applications of the tenant -appellants for fixation of the standard rent. The tenants have consequently approached this Court in second appeal. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties it would be useful to reproduce the provisions of section 3 of the Act as it stood before the recent amendment made by Act 4 of 1963. The section then read as under: - 3. Act not to apply to certain premises, - Nothing in this Act shall apply - - - - - (a) to any premises belonging to the Government; or (b) to any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from the Government in respect of the premises taken on lease, or requisitioned, by the Government. The present cases admittedly do not fall under clause (b) of the above -sub -section but the stand of the Landlord -respondents is that they are covered by clause (a) because, according to the respondents, the premises in dispute belonged to the Government. As against that it is urged on behalf of the appellants that the premises in dispute do not belong to the Government. In this connection I find that the word 'premises' has been defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the Act and the definition leads as under: - (i) "Premises" means any building or part of a building which is, or is intended to be, let separately for use as residence of for commercial use or for any other purpose and includes - (i) the garden, grounds, and out -houses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of the building; (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part of the building; but does not include a room in a hotel or lodging house; The above definition makes it clear that the 'premises' means a building or part of a building and that a plot of land without a building thereon does not answer to the description of the premises. The premises in dispute in the present cases were constructed on plots of land which had been leased out by the Government. In connection with the said lease of plots of land Agreements of lease were executed between the landlord -respondents and the President of India. It was also provided in the Agreements that on construction of the buildings on the aforesaid plots of land perpetual lease -deeds, the draft of which was enclosed with the Agreements, would be executed by the landlord -respondents. Such a lease deed has been executed by the respondent in appeal No. 23 -D of 1962 but not in the other three appeals so far. It was provided in clause II of the Agreements that the respondents would erect and complete at their expense on the aforesaid plots of land within 24 calendar months buildings with new and sound materials to the satisfaction of the Chief Commissioner of such description and design as would be approved in writing by the Chief Commissioner. The respondents were not to make alterations or additions in the buildings without the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner. Clauses IX, X and XIV of the Agreements were to the following effect: IX. The said intended Lessee shall not prior to obtaining a Lease from the President under Clause XIII hereof without the consent of the Chief Commissioner signified by writing directly or indirectly assign, transfer or otherwise part with any interest he may have in the piece of land the subject hereof or in the building or materials for the time being thereon or create any sub -interest therein nor shall he underlet the said land or any part thereof; Provided that in the event of sanction being granted by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, the Lessor shall be entitled to claim and recover a portion of the unearned increase (i. e. the difference between the premium already paid and current market value) in the value of land, at the time of transfer (whether such transfer is an entire site or only of a part thereof), the amount to be recovered being 30 per cent, of the unearned increase. X. The Lessor shall have a pre -emptive right to purchase the property built on the site after deducting 50 per cent, of the unearned increase as aforesaid. XIV. Upon the production by the said intended Lessee of a certificate which must be dated and signed by the Chief Commissioner certifying in accordance with the provisions of Clause II hereof and provided the other conditions of this Agreement have been duly observed, and in the event of any recoveries having been made in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement out of the said security so deposited as aforesaid, upon payment by the said intended Lessee of such sum as is required to make up the full sum payable by the said intended Lessee by way of premium as hereinbefore mentioned, the President will grant or cause to be granted to the said intended Lessee and the said intended Lessee shall accept a Lease of the building to be erected as aforesaid and of the said piece of land hereinbefore described in perpetuity from the day of at the yearly rent of or such other sum as may thereafter be assessed under the covenants and conditions contained in the printed form of Lease attached hereto.' The rent is payable in advance on the fifteenth day of January and, July in each year. The first of such payments to be made on the Clause XV of the Agreement provided that the lease to be executed by the respondents would be in accordance with the printed form of lease attached to the agreements.
(3.) THE opening words of the draft of the Perpetual Lease, which was enclosed with the agreements, were as follows: This indenture made this day of One thousand nine hundred and Between the President of India (hereinafter called the Lessor) of the one part, and (hereinafter called the Lessee) of the other part. Whereas under the instructions of the Government of India relating to the disposal of building sites in the New Capital of Delhi the Chief Commissioner of Delhi has agreed on behalf of the Lessor to demise the plot of Nazul land hereinafter described to the Lessee in the manner hereinafter appearing. Mr. Aggarwala, learned counsel for the respondents, has referred to the various clauses of the Agreements and the lease and has contended that the aforesaid clauses go to show that the buildings which are the subject matter of the premises in dispute belong to the Government. Reliance in this connection is placed upon case Messrs. Bhatia Co -operative Housing Society Limited v. D. C. Patel : A.I.R 1953 S.C. 16, the relevant part of the head -note of which reads as under: - A plot of land belonging to the Board of Trustees for the improvement of City of Bombay was put to auction on certain terms and conditions for the purpose of granting a building lease. One S who was the highest bidder signed the memorandum of agreement incorporating the conditions upon which the auction was held. By clause 7 of these conditions, S agreed, within the time specified therein to build and complete at his own cost of not less than Rs. 50,000 a building of particular specification. Clause 18 of the conditions provided that immediately after the completion of the building within the time specified the Trustees shall grant to S or his nominee a lease of the said plot with buildings thereon for the term of 999 years from the date of the auction at an yearly rent calculated in accordance with the accepted bidding for the plot. The Trustees, pursuant to the said agreement and in consideration of the monies which had been expended in the erection of the buildings and of the rent and the covenants thereinafter reserved and contained (see para 3 of the judgment) demised unto the lessee all that piece of land together with the buildings erected thereon to hold the same for 999 years. In 1948 the successor -in -interest of S brought a suit in the City Civil Court for ejectment against the defendant who was a sub -tenant of one of the blocks in the demised premises, after giving a notice to quit. The sub -tenant claimed protection under Bombay Act 57 of 1947 and that under section 28 of that Act the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit; Held in the facts and circumstances, the demised premises including the building belonged to the Board which was a local authority and therefore were outside the operation of the Act in view of section 4(1). The fact that the lessee incurred expenses in putting up the building was precisely the consideration for the lessor granting him a lease for 999 years not only of the building but of the land as well at what may be a cheap rent which the lessor may not have otherwise agreed to do. By the agreement the building became part of the land and the property of the lessor and the lessee took a lease on that footing. The lessee or a person claiming title through him could not now be heard to say that the building did not belong to the lessor. Forfeiture does not, for the first time, give title to the lessor. On forfeiture he reenters upon what has all along been his own property. The interest of the lessor in the demised premises could not possibly be described as a contingent interest which would become vested on the expiry or sooner determination of the lease. The City Civil Court had, therefore, jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It may be stated that the language of section 4 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (47 of 1947) on which reliance had been placed in the above authority, was, before an amendment was introduced in it subsequent to the above cited authority, similar to that of section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.;