Supreme Court: Determination of lease U/S 111(d) of transfer of property Act-Doctrine of merger

 Learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner relying on provisions of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 contends that leasehold rights have been merged in the lessor since when lessor's interest coalesces with lessee's interest, the principle of merger comes into play. He has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in T. Lakshmipathi and Ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and Ors. MANU/SC/0263/2003 : (2003) 5 SCC 150 and Pramod Kumar Jaiswal and Ors. v. Bibi Husn Bano and Ors. MANU/SC/0346/2005 : (2005) 5 SCC 492. This Court in T. Lakshmipathi (supra) had examined the doctrine of merger as contained in Section 111(d). In Paragraph Nos. 14 to 17, following was laid down:

14. The common-law doctrine of merger is statutorily embodied in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 111(d) provides:

111. Determination of lease.--A lease of immovable property, determines--

* **

(d) in case the interests of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property become vested at the same time in one person in the same right;

* * *"

A bare reading of the doctrine of merger, as statutorily recognized in India, contemplates (i) coalescence of the interest of the lessee and the interest of the lessor, (ii) in the whole of the property, (iii) at the same time, (iv) in one person, and (v) in the same right. There must be a complete union of the whole interests of the lessor and the lessee so as to enable the lesser interest of the lessee sinking into the larger interest of the lessor in the reversion.

15. In Badri Narain Jha v. Rameshwar Dayal Singh MANU/SC/0054/1951 : AIR 1951 SC 186, it was held by this Court that if the lessor purchases the lessee's interest, the lease no doubt is extinguished as the same man cannot at the same time be both a landlord and a tenant, but there is no extinction of the lease if one of the several lessees purchased only a part of the lessor's interest. In such a case the leasehold and the reversion cannot be said to coincide.

16. In Sk. Faqir Bakhsh v. Murli Dhar MANU/PR/0179/1931 : AIR 1931 PC 63, the Plaintiff was holding on lease a portion of the entire property. Subsequently, the Plaintiff and the Defendant became pro indiviso joint proprietors of the property by purchasing shares from the earlier owners. The lease was subsisting when the shares were bought by the parties. In a suit for accounts filed by the Plaintiff it was held that the Plaintiff's rights under lease of a part do not merge in his rights as joint proprietor of the whole of the property as between the parties the Plaintiff held a valid and subsisting lease.

17. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Parmeshwar Singh v. Sureba Kuer MANU/BH/0096/1925 : AIR 1925 Pat 530, held that Section 111(d) applies only to a case where the interests of the lessee and of the lessor in the whole of the property become vested at the same time in one person in the same right. Merger is largely a question of intention, dependent on circumstances, and the courts will presume against it when it operates to the disadvantage of a party, as was held by this Court in Nalakath Sainuddin v. Koorikadan Sulaiman, MANU/SC/0564/2002 : (2002) 6 SCC 1 (SCC para 20)."

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 1533 and 1534 of 2019

Decided On: 12.02.2019

Delhi Development Authority  Vs.  Karamdeep Finance & Investment (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0183/2019,(2020) 4 SCC 136

Author: Ashok Bhushan, J.

Print Page

When govt lessee becomes unauthorized occupants on govt land?

 Present is not such a case, instead, it is the plea of the appellants that they or their predecessors-in-interest came to occupy the premises in question on the basis of lease which they acquired through auction/allotment and that too for a specified period. The said lease period/allotment was extended from time to time although subject to increase in the lease money. No evidence has been produced on record before the authorities under the 1973 Act or the learned Single Judge which would negate the fact that lease was extended beyond 31.03.1996. It is also not disputed that the receipts issued to the appellants was for the use and occupation charges of the sites in question. After the year 1996, the appellants can very well be said to be unauthorized occupants of the sites in question and in any case, it is an admitted case that since the year 2006, no amount has been paid by the appellants or their predecessors-in-interest to respondent No. 2. This apparently leads us to the conclusion that the appellants are in unauthorized possession of the premises in question and, therefore, have been rightly ordered to be evicted from the same.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

LPA No. 1032 of 2014 (O&M)

Decided On: 28.01.2015

Appellants: Rakesh Kumar Jaswal and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: State of Punjab and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S.J. Vazifdar, Actg. C.J. and Augustine George Masih, J.

Citation;AIR 2015 P&H142

Print Page

Whether Govt can terminate lease granted by it if lessees committed breach of terms of contract?

The Court then proceeded to hold that leases in question were given for a period of 30 years containing clause of perpetual renewal. It then found that the lessees have option to terminate the lease but so long as they continue as lessee, it is not possible for the Government to terminate lease unless lessees committed breach of terms of the contract or failed to pay the rent. The Court 

positively found that the leases have got a character which is akin to a perpetual lease. 

Bombay High Court

Smt. Jaikumari Amarbahadursingh vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through on 30 September, 2008

Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, R. C. Chavan

Print Page