FACTS On an application made by Gopaldas Mohta father of respondent No.
However, the prayer of respondent number.
1 and 2, the Corporation passed Resolution No.
However, the appellants joy proved to be short lived because in the appeals filed by the heirs of Parmanand Mundhada and respondent No.
The appellant did exercise option for renewal of lease by sending letter dated 15.1.1973 to Parmanand Mundhada subject to the companydition of renewal of lease by the Corporation.
1 and 2 challenged the decision of the Corporation to grant lease to the appellant in Writ Petition No.
The relevant portions of the High Courts judgment dated 25.7.1991 are extracted below To this letter Exh.
3.16 In its reply, the appellant companytroverted the allegation of favoritism and pleaded that respondent number.
By an interim order dated 14.8.1996, the High Court directed that status quo be maintained regarding possession of the plot.
The appellant questioned this action of the Corporation in Writ Petition No.1786 of 1996.
Another plea taken by the appellant was that respondent number.
During the pendency of the suit, Parmanand Mundhada died and his legal representatives were brought on record.
15,000/ per year by way of ground rent of the land.
1 and 2 do number have the locus standi to challenge Resolution dated 28.8.1991 because the plot had been assigned by Smt.
Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior companynsel appearing for respondent number.
90,000/ Rupees Ninety Thousand only at any time during the first five years of the lease and to purchase all the rights of the Lessor under said Head Lease from the Municipal Committee, Nagpur, together with his rights over the plinth and the material and on this amount being paid as per this companyditions, the lessor shall be bound to execute the necessary assignment or other assurance in favour of the lessees at the companyt and expenses of the lessees.
It also proposed that in stead of ground rent of Rs.
3.4 The suit filed by the appellant was decreed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur hereinafter referred to as, the trial Court vide judgment dated 28.4.1980 but the same was reversed by the High Court in First Appeal Nos.
3.10 In the written statement filed by the appellant, it was pleaded that respondent number.
The same remained pending till 18.10.2001, on which date the High Court dismissed Writ Petition No.1786 of 1996 as withdrawn.
137 Since Messrs Saroj Screen Private Limited has been paying from time to time ground rent of the land and the land and building thereon are in possession of the Saroj Screen Private Limited, there should be numberobjection for mutation of the land in their name.
3.11 In the written statement filed on behalf of the Corporation, an objection was taken to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the issues raised therein are purely companytractual and the same cannot be decided by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
95 and 96 of 1980, the High Court had found that the appellant was number ready and willing to perform its part of agreement dated 10.09.1947.
98 a reminder was sent on 15th February 1974 after a gap of one year.
Gangabai.
belonging to the Lessor, have been companylected and are lying.
3.3 Parmanand Mundhada submitted application dated 7.3.1974 to the Corporation for renewal of lease for a period of 30 years.
That resolution reads as under Resolution No.
Therefore, as by way of resolution dated 29.10.1975, bearing number 162, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation has fixed the ground rent at Rs.
This right of the lessor, is however, retained by the lessor, for his own benefit and the lessees shall have numberclaim to the interest thereby created.
By lease deed dated 10.9.1947, Gopaldas Mohta transferred all the rights and interests vested in him including the one relating to renewal of the lease to the appellant, who was also given an option to pay to the lessor, i.e. Gopaldas Mohta a sum of Rs.90,000/ during the first five years of the lease and purchase all his rights from the Committee.
15,000/ by way of ground rent is being paid, which is more than ground rent of Rs.
A companymunication dated 23.9.1985 received by the respondent number2 from the said assignees is appended herewith.
It was further pleaded that the assignment deeds dated 2.9.1985 executed by the heirs of Parmanand Mundhada had numbersanctity in the eyes of law because tenure of the initial lease granted to Ghanshyam Mohta had ended in 1974.
The Lessor hereby lessee the said plot including the plinth and above mentioned materials which have already been delivered into the possession of the Lessees by the Lessor , to the Lessees, for a period companymencing from 28.3.1947 till 16th March, 1974, which is the entire unexpired period of the Lease which the Lessor holds under the Municipal Committee, Nagpur.
This was companymunicated to the Corporation vide letter dated 12.6.2000.
15,000/ after making recovery of arrears according to that resolution and recommended for acceptance.
Kamla Devi , Municipal Committee of Nagpur for short, the Committee passed resolution dated 17.3.1944 for grant of lease to him in respect of the plot described herein above for a period of 30 years.
They pleaded that in view of Resolution dated 29.10.1975 vide which the Corporation renewed lease in favour of Parmanand Mundhada for a period of 30 years, the subsequent resolution was liable to be declared as nullity, more so, because while deciding First Appeal Nos.
1613 of 1992 and prayed that Resolution dated 28.8.1991 may be quashed and a direction be issued for registration of lease deed in their favour because the heirs of Parmanand Mundhada had assigned leasehold rights in their favour.
1135 of 1993 latest by 31.12.2010.
3.14 In the meanwhile, the State Government accorded sanction for grant of lease to the appellant for a period of 30 years, i.e., from 16.3.1991 to 15.3.2021.
Therefore, the House has taken into companysideration the resolution renewal of lease for 30 years from 16.3.1991 at the ground rent of Rs.
1 and 2 had number companye to the Court with clean hands inasmuch as they have suppressed the fact that the suit filed by them was pending before the Civil Court.
1 and 2 for issue of a direction to the Corporation to implement Resolution dated 29.10.1975 was rejected on the premise that the issue was pending companysideration before the trial Court.
1 and 2 cannot question the sanction accorded by the State Government under Section 70 5 of the Act because their predecessor had number companyplied with the companyditions incorporated in Resolution dated 29.10.1975.
3.15 On companying to know of the aforesaid decision of the State Government, respondent number.1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No.3661 of 2001 and prayed that companymunication dated 12.6.2000 be quashed by companytending that during the pendency of Writ Petition Nos.1613 of 1992 and 1786 of 1996, there was numberjustification for according sanction under Section 70 5 of the Act.
On merits, it was pleaded that assignment deeds dated 2.9.1985 are number binding on the Corporation because it had number been apprised about the transfer of leasehold rights by the heirs of Parmanand Mundhada in favour of respondent number.
Another plea taken by respondent number.1 and 2 was that the decision of the State Government and the Corporation was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as public property was transferred to the appellant without companyducting auction or inviting tenders so as to enable the members of public to participate in the process of grant of lease.
Gangabai to Parmanand Mundhada.
Thereupon, the appellant filed an application dated 6.5.1998 with a prayer that it may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition.
3.9 Respondent Nos.
That letter is Exh.
95 of 1980 and 96 of 1980 filed by the heirs of Parmanand Mundhada and respondent No.2 and the Corporation respectively.
1 and 2.
90,000/ only during the last year before the expiry of the lease by afflux of time.
If you have applied, what is the result of your application.
2 Smt.
3.8 In furtherance of the aforesaid resolution, lease deed dated 4.9.1991 was executed between the Commissioner of the Corporation and the appellant.
After some time, the appellant filed Special Civil Suit No.96/1974 for specific performance, which was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 28.4.1980.
3.12 At this stage, it will be appropriate to mention that during the pendency of Writ Petition No.1613 of 1992, respondent number.1 and 2 filed Special Civil Suit No.1135 of 1993 for eviction of the appellant, possession of the suit property and recovery of damages by alleging that Resolution dated 28.8.1991 was illegal and without jurisdiction and lease deed dated 4.9.1991 executed in favour of the appellant did number create any rights in its favour.
That letter is addressed to defendant number 1 Parmanand by the Counsel of the plaintiff.
While dealing with the challenge to Resolution dated 28.8.1991 and the decision of the State Government to accord sanction under Section 70 5 , the Division Bench opined that during the subsistence of Resolution dated 29.10.1975, the Corporation companyld number have granted lease in favour of the appellant and the State Government had numberright to validate such grant.
3.13 After filing the written statement in Writ Petition No.1613 of 1992, the Corporation passed Resolution dated 22.7.1996 and cancelled the lease granted to the appellant on the ground that previous sanction of the State Government had number been obtained as per the requirement of Section 70 5 of the Act.
However, instead of taking action on the request of respondent number.
PROVIDED HOWEVER, if the lessees acquire the interests of the lessor, as provided in Clause 5 below, the lessees shall be entitled to all the rights and interest of the lessor under the said clause for renewal, together with all other interests which the lessor may have under the lease before mentioned, dated 17th March, 1944 including the right of renewal, therein mentioned.
20,000/ should be recovered, which suggestion was made by Honble Member Shri Atalbahadur Singh.
An option was also given to the appellant to acquire the interest of the lessor on payment of the same price during the last year before expiry of the lease by efflux of time.
2 and the Corporation, the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit by observing that the appellant companyld number prove its readiness or willingness to implement the companytract.
Over this plot, certain building materials, such as sand, stones, metal and other iron and wooden material etc.,
1 and 2 were partly allowed, Resolution dated 28.8.1991 passed by Municipal Corporation of the City of Nagpur for short, the Corporation for renewal of lease in favour of the appellant in respect of Plot No.5, Circle No.19/27, Division I, Old Sarai Road, Geeta Ground Layout, Nagpur as also sanction accorded by the State Government under Section 70 5 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 for short, the Act were quashed and a direction was issued to Civil Judge Senior Division , Nagpur to decide Special Civil Suit No.
However, without waiting for the Corporations response, the appellant filed Special Civil Suit No.96 of 1974 against Parmanand Mundhada, Gopaldas Mohta, Gangabai and the Corporation for the specific performance of agreement dated 10.9.1947 executed by Gopaldas Mohta.
137 dated 28.8.1991 for renewal of lease in favour of the appellant for a period of 30 years companymencing from 16.3.1991 subject to the companydition of payment of ground rent at the rate of Rs.20,000/ per annum.
After 1 year and about 8 months, the Corporation sent letter dated 27.4.1998 to the appellant and gave an assurance for restoration of the lease subject to the companydition that it shall have to withdraw the writ petition.
Messrs Saroj Screen Private Limited, has by written letter guaranteed to pay Rs.
It was further pleaded that the sanction accorded by the State Government is number retrospective and the Corporation is required to execute a new lease which would be effective from 1991.
This suggestion was unanimously sanctioned by the voice of acceptance.
S. Singhvi, J. Leave granted.
M s Saroj Screen Private Limited had paid the amount of ground rent of Rs.
After 12 years, the appellant sent letter dated 15.1.1973 to Parmanand Mundhada indicating therein that it was ready to pay Rs.90,000/ and purchase the interest created in favour of Gopaldas Mohta vide lease deed dated 28.10.1944.
These appeals are directed against judgment dated 16.10.2009 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench whereby the writ petitions filed by respondent number.
The lessees shall have also the option to acquire the said interest from the lessor at any time, on payment of the same price, namely Rs.
13,120/ in future ground rent of Rs.
13,120/ per year and Rs.
Another plea taken by the appellant was that Resolution dated 29.10.1975 passed by the Corporation for extending the term of lease in favour of Parmanand Mundhada had became infructuous because he did number pay the enhanced ground rent and penalty.
1 and 2 referred to Clause 8 of lease deed dated 28.10.1944 executed between the Committee and Gopaldas Mohta and argued that the Corporation, which came to be companystituted under the Act had numberoption but to renew the lease because the option available under that clause for resumption of the plot by paying market value of the structure had number been exercised and Parmanand Mundhada in whose favour Smt.
Thereafter, the name of Parmanand Mundhada was entered in the records of the Committee along with that of Smt.
She assigned the same to Parmanand Kisandas Mundhada of Calcutta by executing deed dated 12.8.1960.
13,120/ which is fixed, there will be numberkind of financial loss of the Corporation.
The lessees shall have the option to pay to the lessor a sum of Rs.
Please let me know whether you have applied to the Municipal Corporation, Nagpur for renewal of the lessor whether you want to apply for renewal of the lease.
The appellant also requested Parmanand Mundhada to approach the Corporation, which had succeeded the Committee, for renewal of the lease after 16.3.1974.
1 Ghanshyam Mohta and father in law of respondent No.
15,000/ per annum and as per resolution number 162 dated 29.10.1975 fix the ground rent at Rs.
My client has been ever ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract under the Indenture dated 10.9.1947 with Diwan Bahadur Seth Gopaldas Mohta, by which you are bound.
2,12,529.60 for the period 16.3.1984 to 25.3.1991.
Ltd., I have to invite your attention to their registered letter dated 15.1.1973 received by your on 19.1.1973.
3.17 The Division Bench of the High Court overruled the preliminary objections raised by the appellant and the Corporation to the maintainability of the writ petition by relying upon the judgments of this Court in D.F.O., South Kheri v. Ram Sanehi Singh 1971 3 SCC 864 and J.S. Enterprises P Ltd. v. State of Bihar 2004 7 SCC 166.
3.7 After the judgment of the High Court, respondent number.1 and 2 submitted application dated 1.8.1991 to the Commissioner of the Corporation for entering their names in the municipal records by asserting that the heirs of Parmanand Mundhada had assigned the leasehold rights of the plot in their favour by registered deeds dated 2.9.1985 and this fact had been brought to the numberice of the Corporation vide letter dated 23.9.1985.
1 and 2 had number produced any evidence before the High Court to substantiate their assertion that Parmanand Mundhada had filed an appeal under Section 397 3 read with Section 411 of the Act questioning Resolution dated 29.10.1975 to the extent of enhancement of ground rent and imposition of penalty and argued that even if such an appeal had been filed, the same did number entitle the beneficiary of the resolution to claim renewal of lease without fulfilling the companyditions incorporated therein.
The main lease in favour of the lessor, companytains a clause for renewal under which the lessor shall be entitled to have the lease renewed in his favour, for a further period on the expiry of the present lease.
Learned companynsel submitted that respondent number.
Shri Gagan Sanghi, learned companynsel for the appellant argued that the reasons assigned by the High Court for nullifying the decision taken by the State Government and the Corporation to grant lease in favour of the appellant are legally unsustainable and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because Resolution dated 29.10.1975 passed by the Corporation for renewal of lease in favour of Parmanand Mundhada had number been acted upon.
