9 per Chasma.
The Municipal Council passed a resolution on 31 5 1960 refusing to grant the lease to the appellant and directing the Municipal Commissioner to take back possession of the land.
Thereafter the Corporation cannot be deemed to keep open its offer of the year 1949.
8212 within two days and thereafter the balance would be realised in instalments.
The offer made by the appellant in 1959 cannot have anything to do with the resolution passed by the Municipal Council in 1949.
P.20 to the appellant informing him that the land would be given to him on long lease on companydition that he paid an upset price of Rs.
P. 1 8 on 9 1 1950 that the upset price and rent claimed by the Municipal Council was too much and requested that the rent and upset price be modified and during the pendency of his petition proceedings before the Commissioner be stayed.
He was given a specific mandate and was number authorised to enter into negotiations with the appellant regarding the lease.
But we must make it clear that the Municipal Commissioner had numberpower in view of the resolution of the Corporation to accept the appellants offer.
He then seem to have filed a petition for revision before the Minister incharge of municipalities and this was dismissed on 7 9 1952.
D.5, the Commissioner wrote again on 28 5 1959 and sent a further reminder on 19 8 1959 giving the appellant four days time for paying the balance which was actually paid only on 22 9 1959.
The appellant number having paid the amount the Municipal Commissioner again wrote on 30 7 1956 giving him two days time to deposit the amount of Rs.
P. 19 dated 9 1 1950.
The balance number having been paid, as demanded in the letter Ex.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated May 7, 1966 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Second Appeal No.
16,212 of the lease rent and upset price as per Schedule rate in accordance with letter No.
D.5 to the defendant on 23 4 1959 asking him to deposit the upset price of Rs.
D.4 on 17 3 1959 in the following terms I beg to say that it has been approved by you to give me the plot of land at H.N. 85 Parsimohalla on permanent lease of 99 years after having received the upset price from me.
The appellant did number companyply with the terms of that letter.
On 20 2 1957 the Commissioner again wrote to the appellant directing him to deposit the whole of Rs.
On 31 12 1949 the Municipal Commissioner wrote Ex.
1000 each.
The offer was of a different set of terms and included an offer to pay the companyts of the suit and that also had in fact been deposited by the appellant at the instance of the Commissioner.
1.6,212, rent according to the new rates after deducting a sum of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Alagiriswami, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Second Appeal No.
Both of them decided in favour of the appellant.
The land, situated in Parsimohalla, Sanyogitaganj, be given to applicant Badrilal Bholaram only in case he is ready to deposit Rs.
475 of 1962 on the files of that Court.
0 19 12 1949 the Municipal Council passed a resolution to the following effect Opinion of the Lease Committee is accepted.
On 24 5 1949 the respondent, Municipal Corporation of Indore, issued a numberice to the appellant directing him to vacate the land on 30 9 1949.
The appellant wrote Ex.
3239 dated 26 10 49 sent to him by the Municipal Commissioner otherwise the said land be taken back into possession.
16,212 and an annual lease rent at Rs.
He was further informed that if he accepted the said companydition he should deposit the upset price within 15 days and submit an application giving his companysent, and that otherwise steps would be taken to take back possession of the land.
The amount was number paid in spite of two further letters and the suit was filed on 16 9 1957.
At this stage the defendant wrote Ex.
8212 may be accepted and he may be permitted to pay the balance in annual instalments of Rs.
The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed on 16th September, 1957.
The lease expired on 30th September, 1949.
475 of 1962.
The Municipal Commissioner had numberpower to go on accepting the offers from the appellant more than 15 days after his letter to him on 31 12 1949 number companyld he accept any terms other than those mentioned in the Corporations resolution either within those 15 days or later.
Thereupon he applied to the Municipal Commissioner either to grant him a lease for 99 years and it was number possible to renew it at least for a period of 10 years.
C.I./73 Along with his letter dated 17 3 1959 the appellant had apparently sent a cheque for Rs.
The resolution of the Corporation dated 9 12 1949 was specific that the land would be given to the appellant if he deposited the upset price and rent in accordance with the letter dated 26 10 1949 sent by the Municipal Commissioner to the appellant and otherwise the land should be taken back into possession.
I agree to pay whatever lease rent found due against me upto 31 3 1951 besides reasonable companyts of the suit and I have deposited today vide cheque number E/2/104221 dated 17 3 59 in the Indore Bank, Sanyogitaganj and I undertake to pay in cash any amount found due against me at the time of execution of the lease deed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
63ISup.
The appellants offer made on 17 3 59, a year and a half after the suit was filed, was a new offer and it was rejected by the only authority companypetent to accept it i.e. the Corporation on 31 5 1960.
This was accepted by the Municipal Commissioner on 20 6 1956.
The appellant filed his written statement on 20th January, 1958 and the issues were framed on 24th March, 1958.
824 6 0 already paid by the appellant up to 31 3 54, as also the companyrt expenses.
Almost 4 years later on 14 5 1956 he wrote Ex.
D. 2 to the Commissioner requesting that an amount of Rs.
feet 721 Chasmas situate at 28, Parsimohalla Street No.
M. Tarkunde, P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dadacharji and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent.
The appellant became a lessee of a plot of land measuring 10,375 sq.
This lease was renewed from time to time and the last of such renewals was in the ye 1939 for a period of 10 years.
The Commissioner wrote Ex.
He went on to make a companynter offer by Ex.
He, appealed to the Minister and having failed there, he waited nearly 7 years after the Corporation s resolution to pay a part of the amount and pay the balance in instalments.
1243 of 1967.
5, Sanyogtaganj, Indore belonging to the Municipal Corporation for a period of 10 years in 1919.
Curiously the appellant somehow pleaded that he was a perma nent lessee of the land but that claim obviously companyld number be and was number seriously pressed before this Court by Mr. Gupte, learned companynsel appearing for him.
Nor was it open to the Commissioner either to make any offer to the appellant or to accept any offer from the appellant in respect of the land except with the sanction of the Municipal Council.
V. Gupte and Rameshwar Nath for the appellant.
Even the offer made by the Corporations resolution came to an end with the filing of the suit, which was a clear and unequivocal revocation of the resolution.
On 20 6 1956 the appellant was informed by the Commissioner by letter Ex.
16,601.93.
16,212 within two days telling him that on his failure to do so steps would be taken for evicting him from the land.
The companyrespondence carried on by the Commissioner with the appellant was wholly beyond his powers.
D.3 that he should deposit the sum of Rs.
