TMI Blog1972 (12) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pal Corporation for a period of 10 years in 1919. This lease was renewed from time to time and the last of such renewals was in the ye 1939 for a period of 10 years. The lease expired on 30th September, 1949. On 24-5-1949 the respondent, Municipal Corporation of Indore, issued a notice to the appellant directing him to vacate the land on 30-9- 1949. Thereupon he applied to the Municipal Commissioner either to grant him a lease for 99 years and it was not possible to renew it at least for a period of 10 years. 0 19-12-1949 the Municipal Council passed a resolution to the following effect: Opinion of the Lease Committee is accepted. The land, situated in Parsimohalla, Sanyogitaganj, be given to applicant Badrilal Bholaram only in case he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alance would be realised in instalments. The appellant not having paid the amount the Municipal Commissioner again wrote on 30-7-1956 giving him two days time to deposit the amount of ₹ 8212. On 20-2- 1957 the Commissioner again wrote to the appellant directing him to deposit the whole of ₹ 16,212 within two days telling him that on his failure to do so steps would be taken for evicting him from the land. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed on 16th September, 1957. The appellant filed his written statement on 20th January, 1958 and the issues were framed on 24th March, 1958. At this stage the defendant wrote Ex. D.4 on 17-3-1959 in the following terms : I beg to say that it has been approved by you to give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Trial Court surprisingly held that he became a permanent tenant, the Trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court held that the appellant was a tenant holding over. Both of them decided in favour of the appellant. The, High Court observes at one place that the appellant's position after 30-9-1949 was that of a lessee holding over and not that of a trespasser, but there is no discussion as to why it considers that the appellant was a lessee holding over. We shall later point out that the appellant cannot be deemed to be a lessee holding over. The High Court, also held that there was no compromise of the suit by any person authorised to do so on behalf of the Corporation. It also held that there was no acceptance of rent with the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was on the same terms as Ex.P. 20 dated 31-12-1949. It could not be otherwise. The appellant did not comply with the terms of that letter. He went on to make a counter offer by Ex. P. 19 dated 9-1-1950. He, appealed to the Minister and having failed there, he waited nearly 7 years after the Corporation s resolution to pay a part of the amount and pay the balance in instalments. This was accepted by the Municipal Commissioner on 20-6-1956. But we must make it clear that the Municipal Commissioner had no power in view of the resolution of the Corporation to accept the appellant's offer. He was given a specific mandate and was not authorised to enter into negotiations with the appellant regarding the lease. The amount was not paid in spite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a fresh offer. We therefore hold that no contract came into existence between the parties on 22-9-1959. It was then urged by Mr. Gupte that the appellant having deposited the rent up to 31-3-1954 and the Municipal Commis- sioner having accepted it he should be deemed to be a tenant holding over. Leaving aside for the moment the contention put forward on behalf of the Corporation that this payment was made behind its back, it has to be noted that the payment was at the rate prevailing before 30-9-1949 and on that date the Corporation having passed a resolution specifying a new rate rent of ₹ 9 per Chasma the payment at the old rate by the appellant and its acceptance by the Municipal Commissioner was not an acceptance of rent as such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. At page 272 it was pointed out :' It can scarcely be disputed that the assent of the landlord which is founded on acceptance of rent must be acceptance of rent as such and in clear recognition of the tenancy right asserted by the person who pays it. The same position was explained in a recent decision of this Court to which one of us was a party in Bhanwnji Lakhamshi v. Himat- lal Jamnadas Dani(2). At page 391 it was observed : The act of holding over after the expiration of the term does not create a tenancy of any kind. If a tenant remains in possession after the determination of the lease, the common law rule is that he is a tenant on sufferance. A distinction should be drawn between a tenant continuing in possess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
