R.S.SARKARIA,J. - (1.) THIS regular second appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 22nd February, 1962, of the Senior Subordinate Judge, exercising enhanced appellate powers, Amritsar. It arises out of the following circumstances.
(2.) SOME land adjoining the fasil situated between Hall Gate and Sikander Gate, Amritsar, was leased out by the Municipal Committee (plaintiff) in 1887 for a period of 20 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/ -by means of a lease -deed to the defendants. The lease was subsequently renewed from time to time. The last renewal of the lease was made per Exhibit P. 27, dated 8th June, 1946, for a period of 11 months and 28 days. Under its terms, Rs. 5/ - as rent was payable monthly. The lessees, on the expiry of the aforesaid lease, failed to surrender possession to the landlord after removing the structure and buildings at their own expense. They also sublet, in contravention of the terms of the agreement of lease, a portion of the premises. Notices for ejectment were served on the defendants several times, the last of which was served on 26th February, I960, but the defendants refused to comply with the same They also defaulted to pay rent for the period, 1st April, 1949 to 31st March," 1960. On the preceding facts, the plaintiff Municipal Committee instituted the suit for ejectment of the defendants from the premises in dispute and also for the recovery of Rs. 180/ -as arrears of rent. The suit was resisted by defendants 1, 3, 4 and 7, who in their joint written statement said that the lease -deed was not admissible in evidence, because it was neither properly stamped nor registered. They further denied the terms and conditions of the lease -deed and averred that no relationship of landlord and tenant was created by that document, which did not bear the seal of the Committee. They denied having committed any breach of the terms of any agreement whatsoever. In reply to paragraph 4 of the plaint they stated : No valid notice of ejectment has been served. It is denied that the lease had terminated or could be terminated by the plaintiff by delivery of the alleged notice. They further pleaded that the lease -deed referred to in paragraph 2 of the plaint had been put an end to and superseded by a subsequent agreement duly entered into between the parties to this suit. It was admitted that originally in the year 1887 the Municipal Committee had leased out a vacant site along the city wall commencing from Hall Gate to Hathi Gate for 20 years to firm Devi Sahai -Chamba Mal for constructing a building thereon for the purpose of setting up carpet factory business. This lease was renewed from time to time. Later on, the portion of the land and the building adjoining the city wall, starting from Sadiq Gate to Hathi Gate was delivered back to the Nazul. The Municipal Committee required the said building, constructed by the lessees, for its own use, and consequently started negotiations with the lessees, who proposed that agreed valuers be appointed by the Committee and the lessees for evaluating the buildings on the site from Hall Gate to Sadiq Gate. This proposal of the lessees was accepted by the Committee per its resolution No. 2107, dated 28th June, 1951. Mr. K. C. Joshi, appointed by the lessees evaluated the buildings at Rs. 40,000/ -, while the Municipal Committee was of the opinion that Rs. 30,000/ - would be fair compensation for the buildings Eventually the parties agreed that the compensation to be paid for the buildings would be Rs. 36,000/ -. It was also agreed that immediate possession of the carpet factory building with fasil and between Sikandar Gate and Sadiq Gate be handed over to the Municipal Committee and the possession of the remaining portion be handed over after three months time on payment of Rs. 36,000/ - as compensation for the entire building. This agreement was duly signed by the then Executive Officer and the representatives of the lessees, namely Parshotam Dass and Jugal Kishore, on 13th October, 1952 In arriving at this agreement, Shri Sarup Narain, Chairman of the Finance Sub -Committee, Shri P. C. Bhandari, Executive Officer, and Shri P. D. Jawa, Municipal Engineer, had acted on behalf of the Municipal Committee, while Parshotam Dass, Shiv Kumar, Jugal Kishore and Shri K. C. Joshi participated on behalf of the lessees. This agreement was confirmed by the Municipal Committee per its resolution No. 1461, dated 9th January, 1953. In pursuance of the aforesaid agreement and the resolution, the Executive Officer called upon the lessees by his order, dated 4th July, 1953, to band over possession of the block from Sikandar Gate to Sadiq Gate and he further stated that the possession of the remaining block from Hall Gate to Sikandar Gate be also delivered on receipt of Rs. 36,000/ -, being compensation agreed to by the Committee. In compliance with that requisition of the Executive Officer, the lessees handed over complete possession of the block of buildings and other structures standing thereon between Sikandar Gate and Sadiq Gate to the Committee. The lessees were at all material times ready and willing to deliver possession of the remaining block of the property to the Committee, but the latter failed to pay the amount of compensation agreed upon. The Municipal Committee. Amritsar, through their legal advisor, intimated on 22nd June, 1956, that the aforesaid resolution No 1461, dated 9th January, 1953, had been superseded by the Deputy Commissioner under section 232 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and further called upon the lessees to deliver possession of the remaining block without payment of any compensation. It was further alleged that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction or power to suspend or supersede the aforesaid resolution, which had been acted upon by the Municipal Committee. It was added that the Committee was estopped by its own acts, conduct and acquiescence from churning eviction of the defendants without payment of Rs. 36,000/ -as compensation. In its replication the plaintiff Municipal Committee denied that any formal and lawful agreement was executed by the then Executive Officer in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of the Executive Officers Act, 1931. It further averred that the aforesaid arrangement was null and void and ineffective, because the Deputy Commissioner had validly superseded that resolution, No. 1461, dated 9th January, 1953, under section 232 of the Act, which order was further confirmed by the Governor under section 235 of the Act It was also stated that the site between Sikandar Gate and Sadiq Gate formed the subject -matter of a separate lease -deed and had nothing to do with the lease -deed in suit Consequently, the delivery of possession of that site has no effect on the present suit Moreover, there was practically no valuable construction on that site. In accordance with the terms of the lease -deed relating to the site now in dispute, the defendants are, at the most, entitled to remove malba (building material) from the site, but cannot claim any compensation for that. It was further denied that the defendants were ever ready and willing to deliver possession of the site in dispute. It was added that the defendants had no mind to push forward the alleged arrangement which was prolonged for their default for three years till it was superseded by the Deputy Commissioner. It was further pleaded that since the plaintiff Committee never entered into any valid and binding agreement regarding the site in suit, the alleged arrangement did not put an end to the lease -deed in suit, particularly when the alleged arrangement was, according to the defendants' own admission, 'without prejudice to the rights of the parties.
(3.) THE parties ultimately went to trial on the following issues: 1. What were the terms of the tenancy in question ? 2. Whether the tenancy has been validly terminated. 3. Whether the defendants have committed breach of contract. If so, its effect ? 4. Whether there was any subsequent agreement, dated 13th October, 1952, in which the plaintiff agreed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 36,000/ - to the defendants. If so, its effect ? Whether the resolution covering the matter of compensation, referred to in the previous issue, was superseded by the Deputy Commissioner under section 232 of the Municipal Act; and was that order confirmed by the Governor under section 235 of the said Act. If so, its effect ? Whether the defendants are estopped from claiming compensation by their conduct.;