Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Narendra Harilal Jethwa, was the defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.132 of 2002 filed by the respondents, who are trustees of a public trust owning several temples. The appellant was inducted as a tenant under a registered lease deed dated 21st December, 1970 for open land bearing Survey No.182, 182A, C.T.S.No.5923 to 5951 admeasuring 2086.04 sq.mtrs. The lease was for a period of 30 years, expiring on 31st December, 2000. The lease deed permitted the lessee to raise construction on the land, but with a rider that upon expiry of the lease period, the lessee shall remove the construction at his own cost. After the lease expired, the appellant did not hand over possession, and the respondents served a notice dated 7th September, 2001 calling upon him to vacate. Since the appellant failed to comply, the suit was filed on 20th February, 2002 for possession and mesne profits. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The appellant then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal issue was whether the appellant, as a lessee of open land, was entitled to protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The appellant argued that the lease was for a building constructed on the land and that he was a tenant entitled to protection under the Rent Act. The respondents contended that the lease was of open land, not covered by the Rent Act, and that the lease had expired by efflux of time. The High Court analyzed the lease deed and found that the subject matter was open land, not a building, and that the lease was for a fixed term. The court held that the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 applies only to premises let for residence, education, business, trade, or storage, and does not cover open land. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to protection under Section 15(1) of the Act. The court further held that the lease expired by efflux of time under Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and no notice under Section 106 was required. The court also rejected the argument of holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, as the lessor did not accept rent after expiry. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed, and the decree for possession was upheld.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Applicability - Lease of Open Land - The lease of open land for construction with a clause to remove construction upon expiry does not create a tenancy under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, as the Act applies only to premises let for residence, education, business, trade, or storage. The suit property being open land, the tenant is not entitled to protection under the Act. (Paras 6-10) B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Lease - Termination - Section 111(d) - The lease for a fixed term expires by efflux of time under Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and no notice under Section 106 is required. The lease deed dated 21st December, 1970 for 30 years expired on 31st December, 2000, and the tenant's continued possession after expiry does not create a tenancy under the Rent Act. (Paras 11-13) C) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 15(1) - Protection Against Eviction - Section 15(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 protects tenants from eviction except on specified grounds, but this protection is available only to tenants of premises let for residence, education, business, trade, or storage. Since the lease was of open land, the tenant cannot claim protection under Section 15(1). (Paras 6-10) D) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Holding Over - Section 116 - Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies to cases where a lessee continues in possession after expiry of lease and the lessor accepts rent, creating a tenancy from year to year or month to month. However, in this case, the lessor did not accept rent after expiry, and the lease was not for residence or business, so Section 116 does not apply. (Paras 14-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant/defendant, who was a lessee of open land under a registered lease deed for 30 years with a clause to remove construction upon expiry, is entitled to protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and whether the lease was validly terminated.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 4th January, 2014 in Civil Appeal No.74 of 2008 passed by the District Judge-2, Nashik, confirming the decree of eviction in Regular Civil Suit No.132 of 2002, is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Lease of open land for construction with removal clause does not create tenancy under Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Lease period expiry leads to termination of tenancy
- Tenant not entitled to protection under Rent Act if lease is for fixed term and land is not let for residence or business
- Section 15(1) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999 excludes premises let for residence or business but not open land
- Section 111(d) of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882 applies to determine lease expiry
- Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882 applies to holding over but not applicable if lease is not for residence or business.
