TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years. There was no provision for any further renewal and the lease expired on November 29, 1958. Dr. Mohammad Waliullah became the owner of the lease-hold rights in the land and of the bungalow standing thereon some years before the lease expired in 1958. On March 29, 1958, the Collector of Allahabad, on behalf of the State Government, the successor to the right and interest of the then lessor, the Secretary of State for India, served a notice requesting him under the terms of the lease to surrender the land and hand over vacant possession upon the expiry of the lease. Dr. Waliullah applied for the grant of a fresh lease in respect of the property. On December 14, 1959, the Collector wrote to him that on payment of a premium of Rs. 30,169.46 and ground rent of Rs. 588.94 per annum a lease for 30 years with effect from November 30, 1958 in the first instance, renewable for two terms of 30 years each, subject to an enhancement of rent not exceeding 50 per cent. on each renewal, would be granted. It seems that the parties entered into negotiations as regards the final terms of the proposed lease, but before any decision could be taken Dr. Waliullah died on February 21, 1960. On Oc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al the principal contention of the accountable person was that the lease having expired in 1958 there was no interest in the property left to the deceased which he was competent to dispose of. The Appellate Tribunal observed : " The most significant facts are that though the lease expired on November 29, 1958, the deceased did not vacate the lease-hold premises ; that negotiations for the grant of a fresh lease were going on between the deceased and the Collector ; that the Collector accepted the ground rent from the deceased and after his death from the legal heirs of the deceased ; that the Collector actually agreed to grant a fresh lease for a period of 30 years in the first instance if the deceased was prepared to pay a total premium of Rs. 30,169 and ground rent of Rs. 588 per annum ; that the deceased never vacated the premises and that the Collector also did not take any steps to oust the deceased from the lease-hold premises and that subsequently the Collector agreed to renew the lease in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased at a reduced premium and reduced ground rent. " From this the Appellate Tribunal inferred that although during the life-time of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecified in section 106. " The deceased remained in possession after the determination of the lease and the Collector accepted rent from him thereby assenting to his continuing in possession. Consequently, the lease must be considered as renewed. The original lease was not a lease for an agricultural or manufacturing purpose and, therefore, the renewal cannot be treated to be a renewal from year to year. It must be considered as a renewal from month to month. The position, therefore, is that after November, 1958, the deceased became a tenant from month to month holding over under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. But it is contended for the accountable person that the original lease must be treated as falling within the contemplation of the Crown Grants Act, 1895. It is urged that thereby the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, including section 116 thereof, are excluded. Section 2 of that Act provides : " Nothing in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, contained shall apply or be deemed to have ever applied to any grant or transfer of land or of any interest therein heretofore made or hereafter to be made by or on behalf of the Government in favour of any pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the legal relations constituted before. the Transfer of Property Act came into force and not rights and liabilities which came into existence subsequently by virtue of independent provisions of the Act itself. It was held in Lala Jugdeo v. Brij Behari Lal and Rathnasami v. Subramanya, that the Act would apply to a legal relation created after the Act, and, therefore, an assignment of a mortgage after the Act would be governed by the Act even though the mortgage was executed before the Act came into force. In our opinion, therefore, the deceased was holding over under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act upon the determination of the lease in November, 1958, and he became a tenant from month to month. The next question is whether upon the death of the deceased his interest as a tenant from month to month passed to his heirs. It appears to be the settled view of this court that the interest of a tenant from month to month holding over under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act is heritable. One of the recent decisions on the point is Ram Nath v. Neta. In that case the lease expired on October 24, 1916, but the tenant continued in possession. The court held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person reliance is also placed on Charan Mahton v. Kumar Kamakhya Narayan Singh. But in that case it appears that the heirs of the grantee and not the grantee himself sought the benefit of section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was pointed out that while the lessee himself could, on the determination of his lease remain in possession with the consent of the landlord and hold over within the meaning of section 116, that was not open to his heirs if the lease came to an end upon the death of the lessee and the heirs were in possession without any right whatsoever. It was held that the interest created by the grant became extinct upon the death of the last surviving grantee and the possession of the heirs was that of trespassers. Reliance was also placed on Digambar Narain Chaudhary v. Commissioner of Tirhut Division. But we are not satisfied that anything said there advances the case of the accountable person. We have then been referred on behalf of the accountable person to Subodh Gopal Bose v. Province of Bihar, where the Patna High Court held that if upon the expiry of the lease the lessee continued in possession under an express agreement to do so till the lessor reach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
