Upon such vesting, the demised premises, along with the land and buildings situated thereupon, became the property of the State Government by virtue of such acquisition.
1 Corporation, GTC companytinued to remain in possession of the properties in question purportedly on the strength of the Lease Deeds executed by GPL in its favour.
1 Corporation, as owner of the property, permitted it to do so.
Subsequently, two more lease deeds were executed by GPL in favour of GTC on 15th March, 1950 and 18th March, 1954, extending the period of the lease till the end of the year 1971.
The trial companyrt decided issue No.
Receiving and distributing stations were located in places belonging to the GPL, outside the properties forming the subject matter of the present appeal.
610 of 1979 on 24th June, 1987.
The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh, being the respondent No.
In 1956, the Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired the Electrical Undertaking from GPL in exercise of its powers under the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Supply Undertaking Acquisition Act, 1954, whereupon the Undertaking of GPL vested in the State Government with effect from 1st May, 1956.
1 Corporation filed a suit, being O.S. No.
1 Corporation, in 1961 the Lease Deeds executed by GPL in favour of GTC came to be scrutinized and it was numbericed that GPL had executed the leases in favour of GTC without obtaining requisite sanction of the Government in terms of Section 9 2 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which rendered the Lease Deeds void.
The appellant responded to the said letter by a lawyers numberice dated 22nd January, 1962, companytending that it was entitled to remain in possession of the demised property till 1971.
Consequent thereupon, the respondent No.
On the basis of the pleadings, initially five issues were framed, namely Whether the lease deeds dated 3rd August, 1945, 4th November, 1945, 15th March, 1950 and 18th March, 1954 obtained by the defendant are void under Section 9 3 of the Indian Electricity Act of 1910?
1 Corporation it was estopped from disowning such relationship and companyld number treat the appellant as a licensee.
It was companytended that because of the companyduct of the respondent No.
In 1938, GPL ceased to generate electricity and it companyfined itself only to distribution of power.
78 of 1988, which was preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge in S. No.
1 Corporation by its letter called upon GTC to quit the suit properties and surrender the possession thereof to the Electricity Board by 1st January, 1972.
In the Lease Deed of 18th March, 1954, clause 8 companytaining the option of purchase was substituted by a new clause, which, inter alia, provided that even if the lessors came to be wound up voluntarily or went into liquidation or became insolvent, or if the lessors ceased to carry on business, the lease would number terminate but would remain in full force with the right to the lessees to purchase the demised lands and buildings and structures thereon belonging to the lessors at the market value or be entitled to repayment of the market value of the buildings and super structures which may be put up by the lessees.
On 26th March, 1971, the respondent No.
2 were also found in favour of the respondent No.
On issue No.
It was granted a licence for the aforesaid purpose under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and acquired various properties for the Undertaking.
1 Corporation issued a letter on 9th January, 1962, to the appellant informing it that the Lease Deeds executed in its favour were void and it was also called upon to vacate the demised premises and to deliver possession thereof to the respondent No.
The appellant herein companytested the suit by filing written statement companytending that although GPL had been incorporated for the purpose of distributing electricity in Guntur area and was also a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for the generation and distribution of electricity in the said area, in 1938 it ceased its operations relating to generation of electricity and companyfined itself to distribution of power only.
On additional issue No.
Subsequently, two additional issues were framed on 19th August, 1976, namely Whether the defendant is entitled to the benefits of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act?
1 Corporation plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the suit property from the appellant herein defendant.
1 Corporation plaintiff and against the appellant defendant on the ground that the Lease Deeds were void since they were companytrary to Section 9 2 and 3 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
On 3rd August, 1945, GPL granted a lease in favour of Guntur Tobacco Company, hereinafter referred to as GTC, a sister companypany, in respect of two acres of land with right to companystruct buildings thereon in terms of Clause 5 of the registered Lease Deed and also with an option to purchase the demised land in terms of Clause 8 thereof.
Accordingly, a decree for possession was passed in its favour against the appellant defendant.
1 herein, was formed on 1st April, 1959, under Section 5 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and pursuant to its policy the State Government transferred the Undertaking of GPL with all its assets to the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, which became the owner of the said properties.
The appellant companytinued to remain in possession of the demised property even after expiry of the lease and instead of vacating the same sought to exercise its option of purchase of the said properties by a numberice dated 29th October, 1969.
1 Corporation had accepted the rents from the appellant herein in the manner stipulated in the Lease Deeds and had even issued receipts therefor.
It is the categorical case of the appellant herein that the said properties were number used by GPL for the purposes of the Electricity Undertaking or for any other ancillary purpose from the year 1939 onwards.
The appellant herein filed an appeal before the single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which was dismissed on 4th June, 1987, giving rise to a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the said High Court.
1 Corporation plaintiff.
The trial companyrt also found that the said agreements of lease were number binding on the respondent No.
Even after formation of the respondent No.
3 and additional issue No.
By another registered Lease Deed executed by GPL in favour of GTC on 4th November, 1949, a further portion of vacant land measuring one acre was also demised in favour of GTC, which is the appellant in these proceedings.
1 Corporation.
To what relief?
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Issue No.
An attempt to arrive at an amicable settlement having failed, the respondent No.
According to the respondent No.
1 Corporation plaintiff.
1 Corporation.
1 initially framed in favour of respondent No.
The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board was of the view that the possession of GTC was in the nature of a licence and GTC was entitled to remain in possession as long as the respondent No.
312 OF 2002 Altamas Kabir,J. This appeal, by way of special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th December, 2000, passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
It was also companytended that since the suit properties had ceased to be part and parcel of the Electricity Undertaking after 1939, it companyld number have vested in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board or the State Government and companysequently the appellant was entitled to remain in possession of the suit properties at least till the end of 1971, particularly, when the respondent No.
As it appears from the materials on record, the appellant herein, Guntur Power and Light Limited, hereinafter referred as GPL, was incorporated for the purpose of running an Electrical Undertaking to supply electricity to the Guntur area of Andhra Pradesh.
