Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the Maharashtra Rajya Veej Vitaran Company (appellants) against the judgment of the first appellate court which affirmed the trial court's decree directing the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, Manoj Abarao Deshmukh and Girish Abarao Deshmukh, were owners of a plot at Malkapur, District Buldhana. The suit property was leased to Malkapur Electric Supply Company for 50 years from 10.04.1938 at an annual rent of Rs. 275. The lease expired by efflux of time on 09.04.1988. The Malkapur Electric Supply Company later merged with the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, and the appellants continued in occupation. The plaintiffs issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on 23.12.1992 terminating the tenancy, and filed a suit for possession on 11.07.2003. The defendants admitted the lease but contended that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court held that the suit was within limitation as it was filed within 12 years from the notice dated 23.12.1992, and decreed the suit for possession with damages of Rs. 25,000 per year. The first appellate court affirmed this. In the second appeal, the appellants argued that the lease ended by efflux of time on 09.04.1988, so no notice under Section 106 was required, and the suit should have been filed within 12 years from that date, i.e., by 09.04.2000. Since the suit was filed on 11.07.2003, it was barred by limitation under Article 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The respondents supported the concurrent findings. The High Court, after hearing counsel, framed a substantial question of law regarding limitation. The court noted that the lease expired by efflux of time on 09.04.1988, and no notice under Section 106 was necessary. However, the plaintiffs had issued a notice on 23.12.1992 terminating the tenancy. The court held that once such a notice was issued, the limitation period under Article 67 would run from the date of notice, i.e., 23.12.1992. The suit filed on 11.07.2003 was within 12 years from that date. The court also noted that the appellants had not challenged the finding that the notice was validly served. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the decree for possession was upheld.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 67 - Suit for Possession - Lease by efflux of time - Limitation period of 12 years starts from date of termination of lease - Where lease expires by efflux of time, no notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is required - However, if notice is issued, limitation runs from date of notice - In this case, lease expired on 09.04.1988, but plaintiffs issued notice on 23.12.1992 terminating tenancy - Suit filed on 11.07.2003, within 12 years from notice - Held that suit is within limitation (Paras 2-5). B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106 - Notice of Termination - Lease for fixed term - When lease expires by efflux of time, no notice under Section 106 is necessary - However, if landlord issues notice, it may be treated as a fresh termination - In this case, notice dated 23.12.1992 was issued after expiry of lease - Held that such notice is valid and limitation runs from its date (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for possession filed after expiry of lease by efflux of time was barred by limitation under Article 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was necessary.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Decree for possession passed by trial court and affirmed by first appellate court is upheld.
Law Points
- Lease termination by efflux of time
- Notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act
- Limitation for possession suit
- Article 67 Limitation Act
- 1963
