BADRILAL Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Second Appeal No. 475 of 1962 on the files of that Court.

(2.) The appellant became a lessee of a plot of land measuring 10,375 sq. feet (721/2 Chasmas) situate at 28, Parsi Mohalla Street No. 5, Sanyogitaganj, Indore belonging to the Municipal Corporation for a period of 10 years in 1919. This lease was renewed from time to time and the last of such renewals was in the year 1939 for a period of 10 years. The lease expired on 30th September, 1949. On 24-5-1949 the respondent, Municipal Corporation of Indore, issued a notice to the appellant directing him to vacate the land on 30-9-1949. Thereupon he applied to the Municipal Commissioner either to grant him a lease for 99 years and if it was not possible to renew it at least for a period of 10 years. On 19-12-1949 the Municipal Council passed a resolution to the following effect. "Opinion of the Lease Committee is accepted. The land situated in Parsimohalla Sanyogitaganj, be given to applicant Badrilal Bholaram only in case he is ready to deposit Rupees 16,212/- of the lease rent and upset price as per Schedule rate in accordance with letter No. 3239 dated 26-10-49 sent to him by the Municipal Commissioner otherwise the said land be taken back into possession." On 31-12-1949 the Municipal Commissioner wrote Ex. P. 20 to the appellant informing him that the land would be given to him on long lease on condition that he paid an upset price of Rs. 16,212 and an annual lease rent at Rs. 9/- per Chasma. He was further informed that if he accepted the said condition he should deposit the upset price within 15 days and submit an application giving his consent, and that otherwise steps would be taken to take back possession of the land. The appellant wrote (Ex. P. 19 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 then seems to have filed a petition for revision before the Minister incharge of Municipalities and this was dismissed on 7-9-1952. Almost 4 years later on 14-5-1956 he wrote Ex. D 2 to the Commissioner requesting that an amount of Rupees 8212 may be accepted and he may be permitted to pay the balance in annual instalments of Rupees 1000/- each. On 20-6-1956 the appellant was informed by the Commissioner by letter Ex. D-3 that he should deposit the sum of Rupees 8212 within two days and thereafter the balance would be realised in instalments. The appellant not having paid the amount the Municipal Commissioner again wrote on 30-7-1956 giving him two days' time to deposit the amount of Rupees 8212. On 20-2-1957 the Commissioner again wrote to the appellant directing him to deposit the whole of Rupees 16,212 within two days telling him that on his failure to do so steps would be taken for evicting him from the land.

(3.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed on 16th September, 1957. The appellant filed his written statement on 20th January, 1958 and issues were framed on 24th March, 1958. At this stage the defendant wrote Ex. D. 4 on 17-3-1959 in the following terms: