The Chairman asked for administrative sanction of the Government of India to place the additional area at the disposal of the Trust on the same terms as those applicable to the Nazul Estate aforesaid held under the agreement, Ex.
Under the heading Computation of revenue surplus occur the following significant statements very much relied upon by the appellant The revenue surplus of Rs.
The Court granted the plaintiff an interim injunction restraining the defendant from putting the market to auction.
D 5 between the Government of India and the Delhi Improvement Trust.
That occasioned the suit for an injunction by the plaintiff against the Trust in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Delhi, instituted on March 18, 1948.
115 of 1953 arising out of the decree dated June 6, 1953, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, in suit No.
It appears that during the pendency of the second lease aforesaid, negotiations had started between the parties for extension of the period of the lease.
The resolution sets out the scheme for the companystruction of the new Subzimandi Fruit Market on a gross area of 10.87 acres including certain lands which till then did number vest in the Trust.
35,000 rising every year by Rs.
4,530/ is made up as follows and is based on the recommendation that the Trust shall own and maintain the market.
The sanction is in terms made subject to the remarks 1 that the whole of the land required for the companystruction of the new market is the property of the Government , and 2 that the trust will administer the new market on its companypletion.
551 dated April 24,1939, Exhibit D 15 to the Chief Commissioner of Delhi.
If the lessee fails to do so, he shall be liable to pay double the rent as liquidated damages for the unauthorised period of occupation till such time as he vacates it or he is ejected by process of law.
D 12 aoreed only to extend the period by two years on the existing companyditions, subject to enhancement of rent to Rs.
2 lakhs per year.
The scheme then sets out in great detail the several structures to be companystructed and the, profit and loss figures.
By the indenture Ex.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated May 5, 1954, of the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh in Regular First Appeal No.
45,000 in respect of the sixth year of the lease.
The said ex parte order of injunction was companytested by the Trust with the result that the trial Court dissolved that injunction.
In pursuance of that settlement a fresh lease was executed.
4,530.
The plaintiffs case in the plaint is that the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff still subsisted and had number been terminated in accordance with law.
D 13 .
The Trust got an advertisement inserted in the Hindustan Times, New Delhi, dated March 5, 1953, inviting tenders for the lease of the market for a period of three years from April 1, 1953.
2 lakhs per year in view of the resolution aforesaid of the Trust but has all the same started proceedings under s. 8.
4.73 lakhs is involved.
In anticipation of the termi nation of the lease period aforesaid the Trust advertised the auction of the market for a fresh settlement.
By his letter dated August 10, 1939, ExD 6 the Chief Commissioner forwarded the orders dated June 21, 1939, of the Government of India agreeing to the proposal aforesaid of the, Trust placing the additional area at the disposal of the Trust on the original terms aforesaid.
The scheme involves numberacquisition of land, but assumes transfer free of charge of an area of 10.87 acres of Government land, all of which except for 1,510 square yards, falls within the limits of the Civil Lines Notified Area Committee.
Under the heading Future Jurisdiction the following significant passage occurs At this stage, if the suggestion is accepted that the, Trust should own and run the market at least until it is firmly established, and in view of the fact that Government are the sole owners of the land, numberdifficulty is anticipated due to divided territorial jurisdiction of the two local authorities and numberchange is proposed.
1,50,000 as annual rent of the market on the expiry of the lease was accepted by the Trust.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The plaintiff carried an appeal to the High Court of Punjab at Simla.
This settlement is evidenced by the resolution of the Trust dated February 24, 1949 Ex.
During the pendency of the appeal a settlement was arrived at between the parties and the plaintiffs offer of Rs.
November 6.
The suit was companytested by the Trust on the allegations that the market had been companystructed on Nazul land under the authority of the Delhi State Government with Government funds, that the market was Government property and was only being managed by the defendant on behalf of the Government, that the Control Act by virtue of s. 3 a thereof was number applicable to the premises in question and that therefore the plaintiff was liable to be ejected as the term of its lease had expired.
It has been companytended on behalf of the appellant that on a true companystruction of the provisions, particularly s. 54A of the Improvement Act as applied to the Province of Delhi and the agreement Ex.
26 of 1953.
C. Setalvad Attorney General for India, Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
Control Act 1947 do number apply to the same.
D 4 dated April 22, 1949, the plaintiff was granted a fresh lease for the period May 25, 1948, to March 31, 1950, at an annual rent of Rs.
The effect of this admission is also one of the companytroversies between the parties and shall have to be adverted to later.
By a letter dated May 1/2, 1939 number exhibited but filed in the High Court at the appellate stage the Chairman of the Trust forwarded a companyy of the resolution No.
D 8 dated May 13, 1939, sanctioning under s. 22 A of the Trust Law the scheme of the New Fruit and Vegetable Market as proposed in the resolution aforesaid at a companyt number exceeding Rs.
But the Trust by its resolution dated May 25, 1950, Ex.
This is the genesis of the New Fruit and Vegetable Market, Subzimandi, which hereinafter will be referred to as the Market, for a period of six years with effect from May 25, 1942, at an annual rent of Rs.
The said property was companypendiously called the Nazul Estate.
The position according to the revenue records is given in the statement on the next page.
The plaintiff has been paying the enhanced rent of Rs.
1,50,000.
One of the terms of the lease, which is a registered document, was That the lessee shall on expiry of the lease or on its determination by the lessor, vacate the premises and deliver its peaceful possession to the lessor.
In answer to this companymunication from the Trust, the Chief Commissioner sent the letter Ex.
4,73,186.
2,000 to Rs.
The plaintiff made an offer of a fresh lease for a further period of five years at an annual rent of rupees two lakhs.
On those pleadings a number of issues were joined between the parties of which the most important is issue No.
32 of 1955.
On this capital expenditure there will be a capital deficit of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J. The main question for determination in this appeal from the companycurrent decisions of the companyrts below is whether the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, XXXVIII of 1952 which hereinafter will be referred to as the Control Act is applicable to the premises in question.
Paragraph 22 of the indenture aforesaid companytains the following important aidmission that both the lessor and lessee agree that the premises in dispute are owned by the Government and the provisions of the Delhi Ajmer Merwara Rent.
Hence this appeal.
The plaintiffs case in the plaint is that these onerous terms successively enhancing the rent to Rs.
Reliance was also placed on behalf of the defendant on the provisions of the Government Premises Eviction Act, XXVII of 1950, read with the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, XXX of 1952.
The letter enclosing the resolution of the Trust as aforesaid companytains a summary of the scheme, a portion of which is as follows An estimated capital expenditure of Rs.
That was the cause of action for the plaintiff to institute the present suit on March 9, 1953.
4.20 lakhs and a recurring revenue surplus of Rs.
The plaintiffs prayer in the plaint is that a decree for a permanent injunction may be passed in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff from the market.
The sequence of events leading up to the institution of the suit by the appellant The Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Union, Su bzimandi a registered body under the Indian Trade Unions Act, giving rise to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows By an agreement dated, March 31, 1937, Exhibit D 5 between the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Delhi Improvement Trust, which will have to be set out in detail hereinafter and the companystruction of which is the main point in companytroversy between the parties, a certain area of the land admittedly belonging to Government was placed at the disposal of the Trust for the orderly expansion of Delhi under the supervision of a single authority.
2 lakhs per year were agreed to by it as it had numberother alternative in view of the plaintiffs need.
Underlined by us .
The plaintiff prayed for and obtained the necessary certificate from the High Court that the case involved substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the relevant statute and the agreement Ex.
This appeal has been brought to this Court on a certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature of the State of Punjab that the case involved a substantial question of law as to the legal status of the respondent vis a vis the Government.
On receipt of the letter aforesaid of the Chief Com missioner, the Chairman of the Trust requested the former to obtain the orders of the Government of India to place the additional land required for the market at the disposal of the Trust under s. 54 A of the United Provinces Town Improvement Act, VIII of 1919, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Improvement Act as extended to the Province of Delhi, on the same terms applicable to other Nazul Estate held under the agreement between the Trust and the Government of India Ex.
