STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. LALJI TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The property in question is plot No. 81/1-M area 5 acres (out of 98 bighas) in village Nasibpur, Bhaktiara, Chhail, District Allahabad, U. P. over which stands a bunglow bearing No. 241 Mor Road, Allahabad. This properly shall hereinafter be referred to as the suit property. The ownership of the land vests in the State. The superstructure which is a bungalow seems to have been brought up by the lessee or his transferee, as stated hereinafter, and which is not very clearly borne out from the pleadings, also not very relevant for the issue at hand.

(2.) The land consisting in the suit property was given on fifty years lease to one J. W. Walsh. The lease contained a clause for renewal which, as far as ascertainable from the material available on record, and as found by the High Court, conferred an option on the lessee to seek renewal of lease for another term of 50 years and on such option being exercised before the expiry of term of 50 years of the existing lease, the lessor shall "act upon forthwith and execute and deliver to the lessee upon his duly executing a counter part or renew the lease for the said premises for a further term of 50 years and with and subject to the same covenants, conditions and provisions as are herein contained."

(3.) The original deed of lease though very material for ascertaining the covenants thereof, including the one for renewal, has not been placed on record by either party. The High Court has in its impugned judgment observed that the suit property has changed hands but the document is certainly available with the State-appellant, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State ought to have produced the lease or its copy to assist the Court in arriving at a just decision, but the same was not done in spite of several opportunities having been allowed for the purpose and though the State had filed a counter-affidavit followed by two ad filed a counter-affidavit followed by two supplementary-affidavits. The High Court has chosen to draw an adverse inference against the State without expressly stating so, as its observation indicates, (to quote) - "Initial lease deed has not been placed on record by either party. It would be fair to assume that the State should be in possession of the same. The condition whether renewal was permissible only once must be in the initial lease deed but unfortunately it has not been placed before us. In our opinion it was for the State to have filed a copy thereof if it wanted to rely upon such a term. That having not been done despite several opportunities availed by it when filing supplementary counter affidavit we can safely conclude that really no such term was contained in the initial lease deed. We have no hesitation, therefore, in rejecting the contention of the State that the lease was renewable only once". This is the most crucial part of the controversy and we will revert back to the same after completing the narration of facts.