Lease of land alone does not transfer building ownership where lessee must surrender the structure on expiry.

Where a lease demises land alone and requires the lessee to erect, insure, maintain and surrender a building without compensation on expiry, the building remains the lessee's property during the term unless the deed clearly provides otherwise. A covenant to hand over the structure at the end of the lease does not itself transfer ownership to the lessor. Rent-control protection for the land does not defeat a separate claim to title in the building or to its rents and profits. A suit for declaration and consequential relief is not defeated merely because the heirs of a deceased defendant were not joined when the effective contest continued against the parties in possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, on a proper construction of the lease deed, the building erected on the demised land was itself demised and belonged to the lessors on expiry of the lease; (ii) whether the respondents could resist delivery of the building and the relief for rents and profits by invoking the protection of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947; and (iii) whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased defendant.

Issue (i): whether, on a proper construction of the lease deed, the building erected on the demised land was itself demised and belonged to the lessors on expiry of the lease.

Analysis: The lease expressly demised the land, and its terms required the lessees to erect a building at their cost, insure it, maintain it, and hand it over without compensation at the end of the term. The covenant to surrender the premises, including the building, did not transfer ownership of the building to the lessors during the currency of the lease. Under the general law, a lessee may remove structures erected on the land, and a contractual obligation to deliver the building at the end of the term is consistent with continued ownership in the lessee until expiry. On the language of the document as a whole, there was no clause positively showing that the building was also the subject of the demise.

Conclusion: The building was not demised to the lessees as property of the lessors during the lease, and on expiry the appellants were entitled to claim the building and its rents and profits.

Issue (ii): whether the respondents could resist delivery of the building and the relief for rents and profits by invoking the protection of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

Analysis: The Act protected the respondents only in relation to the land, by conferring the status of a statutory tenant after expiry of the lease and restricting eviction otherwise than in accordance with the Act. It did not continue the lease beyond its contractual term or confer any title to the building. The appellants did not seek eviction from the land under the suit; they sought only declaration of title to the building and the ancillary relief of accounting and injunction in relation to its rents and profits.

Conclusion: The respondents could not rely on the Act to defeat the appellants' claim to the building or to the rents and profits arising from it.

Issue (iii): whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased defendant.

Analysis: The relief claimed was effectively directed against the party in control of the building and the record showed that the contest was pursued by the defendants who remained in possession. The deceased defendant and her heirs were not necessary parties for the grant of the declaration and consequential reliefs sought, and the suit did not fail merely because they were not brought on record.

Conclusion: The suit was not liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant.

Final Conclusion: The appellants succeeded in establishing title to the building constructed on the leased land and their entitlement to recover the rents and profits, with injunctive and accounting reliefs consequentially following.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a lease demises land alone and obliges the lessee to erect and surrender a building without compensation on expiry, ownership of the building remains with the lessee during the lease unless the deed clearly provides otherwise, and rent-control protection over the land does not defeat the lessor's independent claim to the building and its fruits.

---