TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the lease was a permanent lease with heritable and transferable rights; (ii) whether the leasehold interest and the promoter-acquired property vested in the company without a separate conveyance on conversion and incorporation; (iii) whether the first defendant was only a tenant holding over and whether the lease stood terminated or forfeited; (iv) whether the plaintiffs were barred by acquiescence, and whether the first defendant had perfected title by adverse possession.
Issue (i): Whether the lease was a permanent lease with heritable and transferable rights.
Analysis: The registered lease deed was construed in the light of its terms and surrounding circumstances. The covenant permitting surrender by the lessee did not destroy the permanent character of the grant. The lease was treated as one intended to endure beyond the lifetime of the original lessee, and the lessee's interest was capable of transfer.
Conclusion: The lease was a permanent lease and the interest under it was heritable and transferable.
Issue (ii): Whether the leasehold interest and the promoter-acquired property vested in the company without a separate conveyance on conversion and incorporation.
Analysis: Property brought into the partnership stock became partnership property, and when the firm was converted into a company the statutory scheme of company registration provided for vesting of the firm's property in the incorporated company. The original lessee's position as promoter also supported the conclusion that property acquired for the company's benefit could be claimed by the company after incorporation. The court held that the transaction did not require a separate conveyance for title to pass in the circumstances proved.
Conclusion: The leasehold interest vested in the company without a separate conveyance, and the promoter-acquired property could be claimed by the company after incorporation.
Issue (iii): Whether the first defendant was only a tenant holding over and whether the lease stood terminated or forfeited.
Analysis: Holding over under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act required termination of the lease followed by acceptance of rent or assent to continued possession. On the findings, there was no valid termination of the permanent lease, no fresh tenancy was created, and the pleaded grounds of forfeiture for non-payment of rent and waste were not made out.
Conclusion: The first defendant was not a tenant holding over, the lease was not validly terminated, and forfeiture was not established.
Issue (iv): Whether the plaintiffs were barred by acquiescence, and whether the first defendant had perfected title by adverse possession.
Analysis: The plaintiffs and their predecessors had accepted rent and treated the first defendant as successor-in-interest over a long period. That conduct attracted estoppel by acquiescence. In the alternative, even if the assignment were assumed invalid, long, open, and continuous possession under colour of title was sufficient to support acquisition of the limited permanent tenancy interest by prescription.
Conclusion: The plaintiffs were estopped from denying the first defendant's status, and the first defendant had in the alternative perfected title by adverse possession to the limited interest claimed.
Final Conclusion: The suit for eviction failed on every substantive ground, and the appeal was dismissed while the certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court was granted under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: A permanent lease with transferable incidents may be assigned to a firm or company, and where the leasehold interest is treated as firm or company property and the lessor has long accepted rent and assented to possession, the lessee's successor is protected from eviction absent valid termination or established forfeiture; alternatively, long adverse possession may mature into the limited interest claimed.
TaxTMI 
