Transfer of property act
venkitasubramanian m d
(Querist) 30 May 2013
This query is : Resolved
A lease of large extent of land of private forest was granted by the landlord to the tenant for 99 years. It expired. AFter the expiry of the lease deed, a lease was executed reciting that the large portion of the area of private forests were surrendered and the balanc extent of plantations were leased as and from the next day of the expiry of the lease deed for fresh term to the successor of the tenant and after the expiry of the term.
After expiry of the later lease only for less than 30 acres in extent, (which under the Kerala Law has fixity of tenure), the successor in interest of the landlord files suit for eviction
Our party takes a contention that he has fixity of tenure under the Land Reforms Act, as the latter lease is of only less than 30 acres of plantation and therefore not exempt under the Land Reforms Act and fixity of tenure applies
That is if the later lease of part of the holding is the lease deed governing the parties, not withstanding it being debated as renewal only, the tenant wins.
The question is even as there is no surrender of possession, acceptance of a later lease, which they would argue is only a renewal( as it benefits them to so argue since the earlier lease in the last century of private forests) constitute implied surrender under sec. 111(f) of the Transfer of Property Act.
The next question is when suit is laid after notice to quit after the expiry of the latter lease of 1964, can they for the purpose of denying protection to the tenant under the 1964 enacted Land Reforms Act fall back on the earlier lease as the lease which currently runs on the date of filing of the suit is the later lease.
Require VIEWS with citations. few of which are 1976 SC 1565, 2007(5) SCC.
Invite response
Th
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 30 May 2013
The Land Reforms Act is applicable prospectively and not retrospectively so no benefit can be got derived by alleged lessee of the ibid Act for the lease duly executed prior to enactment of the Act.
The case law is already in your favour which ia already under your hand.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 30 May 2013
no more to add.
