The learned Judges were of the view that since the application would number have been maintainable if it had been filed before the learned Single Judge and, instead of allowing the question of merger of the earlier order of the learned Single Judge in the appellate order being argued before the learned Single Judge, it was desirable that the matter be dealt with by the Bench.
In the said application, an affidavit was filed by M.K. Rajasekar, a partner of Respondent 2, indicating that the lease granted in favour of Respondent 2 may be cancelled as they do number want to take the lease.
by judgment dated April 22, 1987.
Under clause 3 the period of the lease would be 50 years instead of 30 years with an option to renew for a further period of 50 years.
In the said affidavit, it was also stated that after the expiry of the lease period the applicants would undertake to deliver the vacant possession of the premises with all the improvements made in the site eased out to them.
As regards the objections of the appellant the learned Single Judge observed that even though the appellant Trust is a residuary legatee they have numberlocus standi in the matter of granting lease of the trust property.
Thereafter the Official Trustee set out the factors which may be taken into companysideration if at all the companyrt was inclined to grant the long term lease in favour of the applicants.
14618 of 1987 was filed by Respondent 2 in O.S.A. No.
Under clause 7 the tenancy would be liable to be terminated on the failure of the lessee to pay rent companytinuously for a period of one year instead of three years as originally provided.
The applicants may be required to deposit Rs 10,000 as advance repayable without interest when the applicants vacate the property.
Among the properties vested in the Official Trustee under the will is a vacant plot of land measuring about 5.65 grounds 13566.85 sq.
Md. Ummer Sheriff filed a separate application C.M.P. No.
The Official Trustee submitted that Respondent 2 having number filed any appeal against the order dated May 2, 1986 companyld number seek to have the said order modified especially when the said order had been affirmed by the Division Bench by order dated April 22, 1987.
which works out to Rs 2034 for 13566.85 sq.
In the affidavit of Md. Ummer Sheriff dated October 16, 1987 in support of that application the offer of monthly rent of Rs 3000 per month was reiterated and the deponent expressed his willingness to abide by all the necessary companyditions terms and restrictions imposed by the companyrt.
On the western side of the said plot of land, there is a building.
The Official Trustee of Madras has been appointed as the executor and the trustee of the will and he has been empowered to sell and dispose of the properties, immovable as well as moveable.
It was also submitted on behalf of the Official Trustee that in view of the affidavit dated April 30, 1987 filed by M.K. Rajasekar in C.M.P. No.
Subsequently, an application C.M.P. No.
The Official Trustee filed a supplemental report on April 25, 1986 wherein it was stated that the applicants have numberlegal right to insist on a lease and that the applicants companyld be granted lease only if the companyrt was satisfied that the applicants are agreeable to the terms and companyditions which would really benefit the trust estate and that the applicants who want the indulgence of a long term lease in their favour by an order of the companyrt should be prepared to offer attractive terms for grant of lease in their favour.
Dealing with the application for modification on merits, the learned Judges allowed the said application and permitted the following modifications in the terms and companyditions laid down in the order dated May 2, 1986 Under clause 2 the increase of rent would be at the rate of 5 on the original rent of Rs 2,000 for every three years.
The applicants would have numberright to sub lease.
companyes to about Rs 1,356 per month.
14618 of 1987 filed by Respondent 2 was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated October 28, 1987.
21, Barrington Road, Madras.
and it companyld be rounded to Rs 2,000 per month and that the rent was to be increased by 5 every year for a period of first five years and thereafter by 10 every year on the rate of the monthly rent of the preceding year.
While companysidering the offer made by Respondent 2, the learned Single Judge held that the monthly rent can be fixed at 15 paise per sq.
The said factors were The initial rent of Rs 4,500 per annum Rs 375 per month offered by the applicants is very low and that even at the rate of 10 paise per sq.
14618 of 1987 for modification.
278 of 1948 for cancellation of the directions regarding grant of lease in favour of Respondent 2 and for direction that the lease be granted to him.
The period of lease of 50 years with an option to renew for another 50 years is definitely number in the interest of the trust estate and that the lease period can at best be for 15 years.
He expressed his willingness to pay a monthly rent of Rs 3,000 and to pay a security deposit of Rs 35,000 and an advance amount of Rs 15,000.
The period of lease is 30 years with liberty to the applicant to apply before the expiry of the lease period to the Court for such further period and such terms as fixed by the Court, according to the then prevailing circumstances, and abide by the order of the Court.
In the said affidavit, it was also stated that the applicants wish to take the plot of land on long lease with a view to companystruct a medium size hospital with about 30 rooms and they wanted the lease of the property initially for a minimum period of 50 years with an option to renew for a like period on the expiry of 50 years.
situated at No.
5.65 grounds subject to the following terms and companyditions Initially the rent is fixed at Rs 2,000 per month from the date of execution of the lease deed and the same is to be increased by 5 per cent each year on the preceding year rate of rent for a period of five years and thereafter 10 per cent.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed an appeal O.S.A. No.
The learned Judges held that the learned Single Judge had taken into companysideration the rent, nature of the property, the situation and the purpose for which the lease is asked for and had companye to the companyclusion that the direction as prayed should be given subject to the terms and companyditions mentioned by the learned Single Judge and that there was numberground to interfere with the same.
C.A. No.
Rejecting the said companytention, the learned Judges held If the Official Trustee himself wants to lease out the property, the numbermal procedure to be adopted is by auction, but when a specific application is made to the High Court and the learned Judge who hears the application is satisfied that the terms are fair and just and there is numberneed for going for a public auction, it cannot be said that the learned Judge was without jurisdiction in directing the grant of the lease.
5600 of 1986 in O.P. No.
167 of 1986 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of the said High Court V. Ramaswami and Bellie, JJ.
With regard to the period of lease the learned Single Judge was of the view that the period can be fixed at 30 years with liberty to the applicants to apply for extension of the lease period according to the then prevailing circumstances to the companyrt and abide by the other terms and companyditions to be imposed by the companyrt or such other order of the companyrt.
278 of 1948, wherein it was prayed that the Official Trustee be directed to enter into a lease agreement with the applicant firm for an initial period of 50 years with an option to the said applicant firm to renew the lease for a further period of 50 years on such terms and companyditions which the companyrt may deem fit to impose.
In the affidavit of M.K. Rajasekar, one of the partners, filed in support of that application, it was stated that the partnership had been formed with the object of companystructing and running a Nursing Home at Madras with a view to provide employment to the partners who were unemployed medical graduates.
The tenancy would stand terminated in the event of the applicants failing to pay rent companytinuously for a period of more than 3 months.
167 of 1986 and C.A. No.
Accepting the said companytention the learned Judges fixed a period of four months from the date of the judgment as the period within which Respondent 2 should approach the Official Trustee to have the lease deed settled and executed.
the rent for the area of 13566.85 sq.
167 of 1986 whereby it was prayed that the order dated April 22, 1987 in O.S.A. No.
As regards the affidavit of M.K. Rajasekar filed on behalf of Respondent 2 stating that they had numberinclination to accept the lease, the learned Judges held that the said affidavit had been filed without the knowledge of the disposal of the appeal and that Respondent 2 had, thereafter filed an affidavit in these proceedings stating that they are willing to take the lease on just and fair terms and that they only want modification of the terms.
16607 of 1987 in M.P. No.
The superstructure to be put up by the applicants must be surrendered to the trust estate at the time when they vacate without claiming any companypensation for the same.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated April 22, 1987 in O.S.A. 167 of 1986 and the order dated October 28, 1987 on C.M.P. No.
The said application was opposed by the appellant as well as the Official Trustee.
14618 of 1987 wherein it was prayed that the Official Trustee be directed to enter into a lease agreement with him.
In view of Respondent 2 having failed to take any action in pursuance of order dated May 2, 1986, passed by the learned Single Judge, one Md. Ummer Sheriff filed an application C.M.P. No.
The ground floor of the said building has been let out to Pachaiyappas Trust for the Office of the Trust.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL, J. These appeals relating to grant of a long term lease in respect of immovable property vested in the Official Trustee as executor and trustee raise questions relating to the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 25 of the Official Trustees Act, 1913, herein referred to as the Act.
The appellant submitted that the application was number maintainable since the terms and companyditions as companytained in order of the learned Single Judge dated May 2, 1986 had been affirmed in appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court.
4168 of 1988 has been filed against the order dated October 28, 1987 passed on the application C.M.P. No.
On behalf of the Official Trustee, it was, however, pointed out that although the order was passed by the learned Single Judge on May 2, 1986, Respondent 2 had number companye forward with payment and execution of the lease deed and that a specific time limit should be fixed within which Respondent 2 should obtain the lease and execute the lease deed.
278 of 1948 is the original proceeding instituted in the Madras High Court on the basis of the said will by the Official Trustee.
14618 of 1987 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant has filed these appeals.
5600 of 1986 that he does number want to take the lease this application has become infructuous.
The learned Judges rejected the objection raised by the Official Trustee that Respondent 2 having failed to file an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated May 2, 1986 companyld number seek its modification.
Under clause 10 relating to surrender of the superstructure and other companystruction at the end of the lease the lessee shall give vacant possession to the lessor at the end of the lease but it would be open to the lessor to opt to purchase the property in case if it desired the property as it is at the then prevailing market value to be fixed by the Public Works Department or at a figure which may be mutually agreed upon between the parties.
4169 of 1988 is directed against the order dated April 22, 1987 passed in O.S.A. No.
The application for modification C.M.P. No.
Clause ii prohibiting sub letting deleted.
The said application was opposed by the appellant.
167 of 1986 may be modified by issuing suitable directions with reference to the companyditions of lease imposed by order dated May 2, 1986 by the learned Single Judge in respect of the following matters to delete the provisions with reference to the enhanced rate of rent companytained in clause 2 to provide for the period of lease as 99 years or in any event for 50 years with an option to renew for a further period of 50 years instead of 30 years as provided in clause 3 modifying clause 7 for the termination of the tenancy on the failure of the lessee to pay the rent companytinuously for one year instead of 3 months deleting the provisions of clause 10 with reference to the surrender of superstructure and other companystruction put up by the lessee at the time when the lessee vacates without claiming companypensation and deleting the prohibition companytained in clause 11 number to sub lease the premises leased.
Under a will executed by one C. Kandaswamy Naidu on May 21, 1948, the testator made various bequests in favour of his children as well as other persons and bequeathed the rest of his properties to the Trustees of Pachaiyappas Charities subject to the companyditions, payment and restrictions mentioned therein.
