text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
The Court reiterated that there was surfeit of evidence to declare that Abdul Khader was a tenant FAC |
If he was a tenant,the High Court observed.he was a protected tenant under s.34 read with s.37 or under section 37-A of the Andhra Pradesh Act FAC |
The High Court on reciting the facts came to the conclusions,inter alia RLC |
a) that Abdul Khader because he was a tenant between January,1942 to January,1948 for six years,therefore,was a protected tenant under sub-cl.(ii) of cl.(1) of s.34 of the Andhra Pradesh Act; (b) that Abdul Khader held the land from October,1943 to October,1949,therefore,was a protected tenant of Sail Gulshan under sub... |
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision,the appellants being the successor of the owner of the land in question is in appeal before us Ratio |
Shri Shanker Ghosh,learned counsel for the appellant,urged that under the said Andhra Pradesh Act it was mandatory under s.99 read with s.102 of the said Act in conjunction with the definition of s.2(r) of the Act for the revenue authorities to decide whether Abdul Khader was a protected tenant or not ARG |
There being no such finding by the revenue officer,on the other hand there being a finding mat Abdul Khader was not a protected tenant by the revenue authorities it was not open to the arbitrator to decide the question of protected tenancy Ratio |
The arbitrator therefore,exceeded his jurisdiction and the High Court was in error Ratio |
Shri A.K.Sen,on behalf of the respondents on the other hand contended that the compensation payable in respect of the requisitioning and acquisition must be determined under the Central Act and the arbitrator was the authority to decide that question ARG |
The question of Abdul Khader's right to compensation had to be decided in accordance with law ARG |
He had claimed rights of a protected tenant ARG |
He had sought to establish his rights which must be found within the four corners of the Andhra Pradesh Act along with other documents because u/s.40(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Act the interest of a protected tenant in the land held by him as a protected tenant formed 60%.The rights of the protected tenants have been def... |
The two orders of this Court as we have mentioned hereinbefore dated 30th of January,1975 and 19th of August.1985 reiterated the position that it was for the arbitrator to decide the question and he should decide the question in the light of ss.99 and 102 of the Andhra Pradesh Act as set out hereinbefore ARG |
On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that there was a complete bar for any civil court to go into the question whether Abdul Khader was a protected tenant and as such the arbitrator and the High Court had no jurisdiction to decide this question ARG |
For this reliance was placed on S.102 of the Andhra Pradesh Act which lays down that the Act will not apply to lands leased,granted,alienated or acquired in favour of or by the Central Government or the State Government etc.and on -S.99 of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts to deal with any question wh... |
According to the appellant inasmuch as whether Abdul Khader was a protected tenant had not to be settled by the Collector or the Tribunal,the arbitrator and the High Court were in error in going to that question ARG |
We are unable to accept this submission Ratio |
By the scheme of the Central Act compensation was payable to persons who had interest in the land acquired Ratio |
Who are the persons who have interest in the land had to be decided in accordance with the law and the evidence Ratio |
Determination by the revenue authorities and non-determination is not conclusive or decisive Ratio |
It is clear that s.102 of the Andhra Pradesh Act mentions that after acquisition the Act was not to apply in respect of certain land Ratio |
Therefore,it was submitted by the respondents that s.99 of the Andhra Pradesh Act.which made the determination by the Tahsildar to be final and debarred other courts from going into the question did not apply in case of compensation payable Ratio |
In the background of the totality of circumstances as manifest in the different orders it appeared to the arbitrator and the Court that the entry which was made in favour of Abdul Khader as the protected tenant was of doubtful validity Ratio |
We are of the opinion that the High Court was not in error in so holding Ratio |
It was the observation of the revenue authorities that it was spurious Ratio |
That in any event what was the interest of Abdul Khader had to be determined in determining the question of payment of compensation to him and in so determining the facts and circumstances and the proceedings before the revenue authorities and entries and subsequent deletions had to be taken into consideration by the a... |
The arbitrator has done so Ratio |
He had jurisdiction to do so Ratio |
The High Court has so held Ratio |
This Court by the two orders referred to hereinbefore had also affirmed this position Ratio |
In that view of the matter we are unable to accept the challenge to the award Ratio |
Furthermore,under s.99 of the Andhra Pradesh Act the bar was not against the arbitrator but against a civil court Ratio |
In determining the amount of compensation payable to Abdul Khader under the Central Act,his interests in the property had to be determined Ratio |
In another context,the High Court of Andhra Pradesh enunciated the position that it was necessary to determine the interest of the persons claiming compensation Ratio |
Reference may be made to the decision in the case of Archi Appalareddi and another v PRE |
Special Tahsildar,land Acquisition,Visakhapatnam Municipality and mother,[1979] Andhra Weekly Reporter,Vol.1 p.101,where the Court observed in the context of the Land Acquisition Act that a tenant was a 'person interested' as defined in clause (b) of s.3 of the Land Acquisition Act PRE |
He has a right to object to the acquisition and/or the quantum of compensation PRE |
The Land Acquisition Officer or the Court,as the case may be,had to ascertain the value of a claimant's right in the property acquired and compensate him in that behalf Ratio |
We may mention that in the two orders of this Court dated 30th of January,1975 and 19th of August,1985 referred to herein before,this Court had left it open to the High Court and to the arbitrator to decide whether he is a protected tenant or not.the arbitrator has decided that question and the High Court found over wh... |
In that view of the matter we must uphold that decision however unsatisfactory Ratio |
it might appear that a fruit pucker gets 60% of the compensation while the owners get only If that is the law Ratio |
let it be Ratio |
In the aforesaid view of the matter this appeal must fail and is accordingly dismissed with costs RPC |
Appeal dismissed RPC |
Whether the appellant herein and his father had sublet the premises in question in or about 1960 in terms of section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents,Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act,1947 Ratio |
hereinafter called the 'Rent Act') is' the question involved in this appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat dated 21st of August,1979 Ratio |
In order to decide this question,it is necessary to decide the scope and ambit of section 29(2) of the Rent Act Ratio |
To decide this,facts must be referred to Ratio |
The appellant claimed to be the tenant in respect of the two premises which are quite adjacent to each other,one of which is involved in this appeal FAC |
The respondent is the landlord of the two premises and these were situated at Raikhad Ward,Ahmedabad FAC |
The respondent had alleged in the two suits that the appellant was his tenant in the suit premises which were leased out to him and before him his father,for conducting the business in the name of Ahmedabad Fine FAC |
Weaving Works and according to the terms of tenancy suit premises were leased for manufacturing cloth in the name of Ahmedabad Fine FAC |
Weaving Works FAC |
The respondent had further alleged that the appellant No.1 had closed the business and he was not using the said premises for the purpose for which it was let to him FAC |
It was the case of the appellant that in respect of the suit premises he was carrying on his business with respondents FAC |
Nos.2,4 and 5 in the name of respondent No.2,M/s FAC |
Bharat Neon Signs (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.2 FAC |
We are concerned in this appeal with only one of the premises which was involved in Suit No.553 of 1969.It is not in dispute and it never was that the premises was being used by Bharat Neon Signs firm being the defendant No.2 in the original suit Ratio |
At the time of the institution of the suit the defendants Nos.2 to 5 were admittedly the partners FAC |
The present appellant who was the original defendant No.1 claimed to be a partner FAC |
The main controversy was whether the appellant had sublet the premises to defendant No.2,Bharat Neon Signs or whether he being a partner of the said firm had permitted the said firm to use the premises in question FAC |
It is clear from the evidence on record that the partnership firm had undergone metamorphosis from time to time and again ever since the year 1960.The firm Bharat Neon Signs first originated on 4th of October,1960.As many as six persons were named in the partnership firm,on or about 4th of October,1960 and they had exe... |
The said partnership deed records six persons who were to run the business in manufacturing and selling Bharat Neon Signs tubes FAC |
However,the document is silent as to where the business was started Ratio |
On or about 24th of October,1960 FAC |
another partnership deed being Exhibit-69 came to be executed among the six persons and the father of the appellant Girdharlal FAC |
The document is Exhibit-69 and is signed by the father of the appellant and the appellant himself also FAC |
It may be mentioned that the partnership deed Exhibit-114 was executed by six persons and at that stage the appellant or his father were not partners in the firm Ratio |
But thereafter when the partnership deed Exhibit-69 was executed the appellant and his father joined the firm with an agreement to share profits only and their share was fixed at 0.03 paise in a rupee Ratio |
There is a third partnership deed Exhibit-70 which showed that the deceased tenant Girdharlal had died on 1st of February,1961 and so by the remaining seven partners with same terms and conditions,a new partnership deed being Exhibit-70 was executed on 22nd Ratio |
September,1961.At this time the share of the appellant was fixed at 0.03 paise in a rupee to share the profits only Ratio |
In 1965 some partners retired and the remaining four partners executed a fresh partnership deed Exhibit-117 on 1st FAC |
April,1965.This last partnership deed was executed by the appellant and original defendants FAC |
Nos.3,4 and 5 FAC |
The main question in issue in this appeal as well as before the High Court in revision was whether there was a genuine partnership at the appellant was a partner Ratio |
It is true that since after 4th of October,1960 the partnership firm was carrying on business in the premises in question Ratio |
It is well settled that if there was such a partnership firm of which the appellant was a partner as a tenant the same would not amount to subletting leading to the forfeiture of the tenancy Ratio |
For this proposition see the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Mehta Jagjivan Vanechand v Ratio |
Doshi Vanechand Harakhchand and others Ratio |
A.I.R.1972 Gujarat 6 1970 Indlaw GUJ 68.Thakkar,J.of the Gujarat High Court,as the learned Judge then was,held that the mere fact that a tenant entered into a partnership and allowed the premises being used for the benefit of partnership does not constitute assignment or subletting in favour of the partnership firm ent... |
This view is now concluded by the decision of this Court in Madras Bangalore Transport Co.(West) v Ratio |
Inder Singh and others,[1986] 3 S.C.C.62 1986 Ratio |
Indlaw SC 748 Ratio |
The trial court in the instant appeal held that there was subletting RLC |
It accordingly decreed the suit for possession instituted by the landlord RLC |
The suit,inter alia,was filed by the landlord on the ground of subletting FAC |
There was an appeal before the Court of Small Causes,Bombay and by judgment and order delivered by the Court of Small Causes,Bombay on 18th of August,1977,it was held that the learned Trial Judge had erred in passing a decree for possession on the ground of subletting,change of user and breach of terms of tenancy RLC |
In the premises,the appeal was allowed RLC |
It may be mentioned that the respondent No.1 is the landlord of two premises which were quite adjacent as mentioned before Ratio |
The respondent-plaintiff had alleged in both the suits that the appellant was his tenant in the suit premises which were leased to him for conducting his business in the name of Ahmedabad Fine FAC |
Weaving Works,and according to the terms of tenancy suit,the suit premises were leased for manufacturing cloth in the name of Ahmedabad Fine & Weaving Works FAC |
The landlord had alleged that the appellant had closed that business and he was not using the premises in question for the purpose for which it was let to him FAC |
It was further alleged by the landlord that the appellant had unlawfully sublet the major part of the premises in question of both the suits to defendant Nos.2 to 5 in the original suit and these defendants were running business in partnership for manufacturing of neon signs in the name of Bharat Neon Signs FAC |
It was further alleged that the appellant had also unlawfully sublet one room of the suit premises to defendant No.6 in Suit No.553 of 1969 who was residing in that room FAC |
For the purpose of the Suit No.553 of 1969 with which the appeal is concerned,it is relevant to state that the appellant had raised the contention that Ahmedabad Fine & Weaving Works was not the tenant of the suit premies but the suit premises was tenanted by the father of the appellant Girdharlal Chimalal in 1938 and ... |
He has stated further that the suit premises were to be used for business and he could use it for any business and he joined in partnership with Defendants Nos.2 to 5 somewhere in 1961 to prepare neon signs and the defendants Nos.2 to 5 were his partners and doing business in the suit premises ARG |
He contended further that the suit premises was with him and the defendants Nos.2 to 5 had not acquired any tenancy rights in the suit premises ARG |
It is further stated that he had filed a civil suit to dissolve the partnership and to take account and his suit was pending in City Civil Court ARG |
It may be mentioned that by the time the revision petition came to be decided by the High Court the suit had been decreed in his favour directing a dissolution of the said partnership and directing taking of the accounts Ratio |
There was an appeal filed from that decree and that appeal was also dismissed and disposed of affirming the decree for the dissolution of the partnership,inter se between the parties being the partners of the said firm FAC |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.