Certainty in lease duration governs enforceability of automatic extension clauses, while receiver costs may be shared equitably.

A lease of immovable property must have a term that is certain or capable of being made certain at the time of grant, so a clause creating an uncertain automatic extension beyond the stated period is unenforceable. On the lease deed read as a whole, the term was only ten years with at most a further renewal at the lessee's option, and the company court's sanction of the arrangement did not convert the instrument into a decree overriding the requirement of certainty. Estoppel was unavailable because the lessee had proceeded on the basis that the lease was for ten years. The receiver's remuneration and expenses were treated as an equitable burden to be shared equally by the company and the lessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the lease was for a fixed term of ten years only and whether the clause providing for automatic extension beyond ten years was valid and enforceable; (ii) Whether the receiver's remuneration and expenses were to be borne by the Corporation alone or shared by the company and the lessee.

Issue (i): Whether the lease was for a fixed term of ten years only and whether the clause providing for automatic extension beyond ten years was valid and enforceable.

Analysis: The lease deed, read as a whole, expressed the term as ten years and contemplated only a further renewal for another ten years at the lessee's option. The clause providing for automatic extension beyond ten years introduced uncertainty as to duration and was inconsistent with the requirement that a lease of immovable property must be for a certain time. The sanction of the company court to the scheme of arrangement did not itself create the lease by decree or order so as to exclude the statutory rule of certainty. The plea of estoppel also failed because the lessee had always proceeded on the footing that the lease was for ten years.

Conclusion: The lease was valid only for ten years, the automatic extension clause was unenforceable, and the lessee was not liable for the Corporation's dues beyond the stipulated period.

Issue (ii): Whether the receiver's remuneration and expenses were to be borne by the Corporation alone or shared by the company and the lessee.

Analysis: The receiver had been appointed largely because of the dispute between the company and the lessee regarding the machinery and equipment, and the arrangement worked for the benefit of both of them. In those circumstances, it was equitable that the burden of the receiver's remuneration and expenses should not fall on the Corporation alone.

Conclusion: The receiver's remuneration and expenses were to be borne equally by the company and the lessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the extent that the lease was held to have expired after ten years and not to have continued automatically, while the ancillary directions regarding the receiver and other connected matters were regulated by the agreed terms recorded by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A lease of immovable property must have a duration that is certain or capable of being made certain at the time of the grant, and a clause adding an uncertain automatic extension is unenforceable if it renders the term indeterminate.

---