NARENDRA NATH MITTER Vs. RAMPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent against the appellant, who is a ward of Court, for specific performance of a contract for lease of a certain hat. The appellant has been represented throughout the proceedings by the Manager of the Court of Wards in accordance with the provisions of Section 51, Court of Wards Act (9 [IX] of 1879). The main facts are not disputed and are briefly as follows:

(2.) On 8 5-1983, the plaintiff-respondent, Rampal Singh was granted an Ijara lease for the Bowbazar hat by the defendant-appellant, Kumar Narendra K. Mitter for a period of 10 years ending in April 1942 at a rent of Rs. 40 per anensem from May 1933 to April 1937 and at Rs. 60 per mensem from May 1937 to April 1942, There was a clause in the lease relating to its renewal, and there is some controversy as to whether it granted to the lessee a right of renewal subject to his acceptance of the appropriate rent fixed by the lessor, or whether the renewal was subject also to the lessor's pleasure. During the currency of the original lease, the appellant was declared a disqualified proprietor and the Court of Wards assumed charge of his property under the provisions of the Act on 20-8-1939. On 9-4-1942, the Collector of Hooghly directed that the hat should be settled from May 1942 by public auction, and on 18-4- 1942 the lease of the hat for a period of 5 years was put up to auction and the respondent, who was the only bidder, offered a rent of Rs. 110 per mensem. His bid of Rs. 110 per mensem for a period of 3 years was accepted by the Collector on 15-5-1942. The following day, one Kali Prasanna Singh represented to the Collector that he was willing to make a better offer for settlement of the lease with him, but that he was not aware of the auction which was held on 18-4-1942. Accordingly, on 185-1942, the Collector cancelled his order of 15 day and directed the holding of a fresh auction. A fresh auction was held on 1-6-1942, despite the respondent's protest and the final bid of Rs. 405 per mensem made by Kali Prasanna Singh was accepted by the Collector. Meantime, however, the respondent had appealed to the Commissioner against the order of the Collector cancelling his order of 15-5-1942 by which the respondent's bid of Rs. 110 per mensem had been accepted and on 27-7-1942 the Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector and directed the grant of an Ijara lease to the respondent for a period of 5 years at the rate of Rs. 150 per mensem. Respondent agreed to take settlement on these terms and deposited rent at Rs. 150 per mensem up to February, 1944.

(3.) Kali Prasanna Singh appealed to the Board of Revenue against the order of the Commissioner and on 3-12-1942 the Board set aside the order of the Commissioner, and directed him to reconsider the matter and to lease the Hat on such terms and for such period as he considered proper. In accordance with these directions, the Commissioner ordered a fresh auction to be held on 17-3-1943. In the meantime, the respondent brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for specific performance of the contract for lease with him which he claimed was concluded by the order of the Commissioner. He claimed further that in any event he was entitled to a renewal of the lease by virtue of the covenant contained in the lease of 1983 and a permanent injunction prohibiting the grant of a lease to any person other than himself. The suit was contested by the Manager, Court of Wards on behalf of the defendant appellant, and the main defence was that the suit was not maintainable in the absence of a notice under Section 80, Civil P.C. on the Manager of the Court of Wards who is a public officer, that there was no concluded contract for lease, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a renewal of the original lease, but that such renewal was at the option of the defendant.