Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6190 OF 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.17110/2007)
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Rajkumari Padma Kumari & Anr. ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
An application under Section 29-A(5) of the U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was filed by the predecessor of
the respondents herein praying for determination of standard rent of the property in
question. On that application, Case No.10/1999 was registered in the Court of
District Magistrate, Dehradun. In the said application, it was stated that by a
th
registered deed dated 11 January, 1971, a piece of land situate at Gandhi Road,
Dehradun stood let out to Esso Eastern Inc. Under the said deed, the tenant had a
right to install, erect and maintain underground tanks, delivery pumps connected
thereto and building to be constructed for the purposes of storing, selling or
otherwise carrying on trade petrol or petroleum products. The lease was for ten
th
years from 15 March, 1970 at a monthly rent of Rs.450/-.
Esso Eastern Inc. stood acquired by Government of India under the
1
provisions of Esso (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1974. Consequently,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), the appellant before us, came into
picture in the said proceedings. HPCL thereafter filed its written statement in which,
inter alia, it was contended that in the lease, there was a term for renewal for a
further period of ten years at the option of the lessee, that during the said term of the
lease, M/s. Esso Eastern Inc. stood acquired under the 1974 Act and, consequently,
the lease stood transferred to HPCL. It was pleaded that consequent to the passing of
the 1974 Act, under Section 5(2) of the said Act, such lease was to be renewed on the
same terms and conditions on which the lease or tenancy was held by Esso Eastern
Inc. According to HPCL, before expiry of the total term of twenty years, the lessee
th
had availed of its statutory right for renewal of lease for a further term beyond 14
March, 1990 on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the lease agreement.
To complete the chronology of events, the District Magistrate, Dehradun, in
the above proceedings called for the valuation report of the Tehsildar. The report
th
was given on 27 December, 2002 stating that the value of the property on the basis of
circle rate as well as on the basis of market value should be fixed at the rate of
Rs.50,000/- per month. The District Magistrate has assessed and fixed the standard
rent at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month. This rate has been confirmed by the High
Court vide its impugned judgment. Hence, this Civil Appeal by HPCL.
Two points arise for determination in this case. Firstly, the date from
which the rent of Rs.50,000/- per month should be made applicable to the premises in
question and, secondly, whether the High Court was right in confirming the standard
2
rent fixed by the District Magistrate at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month.
In the course of hearing, an argument was advanced on the first point by
the learned counsel for HPCL that HPCL had exercised its option for renewal of
th
lease for a further period of ten years commencing from 15 March, 1990 on the same
th
terms and conditions on which it held the lease before 15 March, 1990. There is
merit in this contention. We find from the correspondence annexed to the paper
th
book at page 227 onwards and, particularly, in the context of the letter dated 15
May, 1990 at page 234, that the appellant herein had exercised its statutory right for
th
renewal of the above lease upto 14 March, 2000 under Sections 5 and 7(3) of the
1974 Acquisition Act. Therefore, on the first point, we hold that the District
th
Magistrate had erred in determining the standard rent from 15 March, 1990 at the
th th
rate of Rs.50,000/- per month because the period from 15 March, 1990 to 14
March, 2000 came within the statutory right of the appellant under the 1974 Act.
However, we do not find fault in the Order of the District Magistrate as HPCL did
not produce the correspondence which is now placed on record before us by the
landlord.
On the second point, we find that HPCL did not lead any evidence in the
form of valuation report challenging the rate of standard rent proposed by the
Tehsildar in its report to the District Magistrate. After the expiry of the contractual
th
lease and particularly from the period 15 March, 2000, HPCL claims to be a
statutory tenant under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972. Under Section 9(2), the District Magistrate is required to fix the
3
standard rent in accordance with certain parameters indicated and provided for
therein. One of the parameters refers to prevailing rents for similar buildings in the
locality. No evidence has been led by the HPCL in this regard. For the aforestated
reasons, on the second question regarding fixation of standard rent fixed at
Rs.50,000/- per month, we see no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High
Court and the District Magistrate. Consequently, we hereby declare that the
respondent-lessor would be entitled to charge, levy and recover standard rent at the
th th
rate of Rs.50,000/- per months with effect from 15 March, 2000 and not from 15
March, 1990, as directed by the District Magistrate. The question as to whether
HPCL is protected under the 1972 Act or not does not arise for consideration in this
Civil Appeal.
We are informed that an eviction suit is also filed by the tenant herein
under the Transfer of Property Act, which is pending before the trial court. We
express no opinion regarding that suit. All contentions available to the parties in that
suit are expressly kept open. Any observation made in the present order regarding
claim to protection under the Rent Act will not bind the trial court in that suit.
Accordingly, Civil Appeal stands partly allowed, with no order as to costs.
...................J.
(S.H. KAPADIA)
...................J.
(B. SUDERSHAN REDDY)
New Delhi,
October 22, 2008.
4