Case Title: STATE OF ORISSA Versus SANTI KUMAR MITRA & ANOTHER
Case No: Civil Appeal No. 9355 of 2011
Decided on: 10th May , 2024
Quorum: HON’BLE JUSTICE Mr. ARAVIND KUMAR
Facts of the case
Shailendra Nath Mitra was first leased the suit property, a Khasmahal lease, in 1905 for a period of 30 years. When the original lessee filed for a renewal of the lease after it had expired, legal actions involving the lessee’s heirs were triggered. The State of Orissa commenced resumption proceedings on the pretext of purported lease term violations.
Issues
1. Whether the lessee break the provisions of the lease agreement as outlined in the 1919 Bihar and Orissa Government Estates Manual, namely clauses 9 and 20?
2. Whether is it appropriate for the State of Orissa to refuse to extend the lease in accordance with the terms outlined in the lease agreement and the manual?
Legal Provisions
• Clause 9 , 14 and 19 of the Bihar & Orissa Government Estates Manual, 1919.
Clause 9: This clause pertains to the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. It outlines the obligations and responsibilities of the lessee (the person leasing the property) and covers aspects such as land use, maintenance, and compliance with the lease terms.
Clause 14: Under this clause, the Collector has the authority to determine the lease. If the lessee violates the terms of the lease agreement, the Collector can take action based on this clause. For instance, if the lessee fails to comply with the stipulated conditions, the Collector may terminate the lease.
Clause 19: While the specific details of Clause 19 are not mentioned in the available information, it likely addresses other aspects related to leases and estate management.
Appellant’s Contentions
State of Orissa, the appellant, argued that the property was not kept in suitable repair and that the lessee failed to file for a renewal within the allotted time, which resulted in the lease not being renewed. The State said that all lessees, with the exception of one, did not seek for the lease’s renewal on.
Respondent’s Contentions
The respondents, who are the original lessee’s legal successors, most likely argued that they were entitled to the lease renewal and that its provisions had not been broken.
Court Analysis and Judgement
The Trial Court’s decision to reject the lessees’ lawsuit was upheld by the Supreme Court of India. The State of Orissa’s appeal was granted by the Supreme Court, which upheld the Trial Court’s ruling. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had neglected to maintain the building in good order and had not submitted an application for a lease renewal within the allotted time. It was also observed that all lessees, with the exception of one, had not submitted an application for the lease’s renewal.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
