NDLI: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sudera Realty Private Limited

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Lease – Tenant at sufferance – Liability to pay mesne profits
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Lease – Tenant at sufferance – Liability to pay mesne profits – Held: A tenant continuing in possession after the expiry of the lease may be treated as a tenant at sufferance, which status is a shade higher than that of a mere trespasser, as in the case of a tenant continuing after the expiry of the lease, his original entry was lawful – But a tenant at sufferance is not a tenant by holding over – While a tenant at sufferance cannot be forcibly dispossessed, that does not detract from the possession of the erstwhile tenant turning unlawful on the expiry of the lease – In the present case, the appellant while continuing in possession after the expiry of the lease became liable to pay mesne profits.West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1956 – Whether there was a prior determination of the lease of 21 years by the respondent-lessor, if so, whether the appellant-lessee is entitled to protection of the Tenancy Act – Held : No reason to disagree with the High Court that the term of lease was 21 years from the date on which the three floors in question were handed over – In regard to the 2nd and 3rd floors, possession was handed over to the appellant on 16.09.1969 – As far as the 4th floor is concerned, the possession was handed over only on 04.11.1970 – The lease agreement in 1968 along with the supplementary agreement in 1969 did constitute a lease – In this case it is no doubt true that there was pre-determination clause which gave an option to the appellant to determine the lease after a period of 8 years – From the evidence and the stand taken by the appellant as emerging from the documents, it is clear that the appellant continued for the full length of 21 years in terms of the lease – Its possession was never ruffled – Appellant also filed a suit – During the entire period after the execution of the deed in 1968 and the supplementary lease deed in 1969, till the period of 21 years ran out, appellant never took up the case based on its right under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act in view of the option it had to determine the lease under Clause 9 – The presence of the clause in question is not to be confused with the issue relating to the effect of the notice dated 07.12.1977 purported to have been sent to the respondent – Therefore, the appellant may not succeed on the strength of the option it claimed under the agreement to lease.Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s. 106 – Was letter dated 19.10.1990, a notice u/s. 106 – Held : On the terms of the letter dated 19.10.1990 it cannot be held that it amounted to termination of the lease – There was a lease for a term of 21 years commencing in the case of the 2nd and 3rd floors from 17.09.1969 – Therefore, the period of 21 years had already run out by the time the letter dated 19.10.1990 came to be issued – In other words, it was a case of a lease qua the 2nd and 3rd floors which had expired by efflux of time, in September, 1990. Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 51 – Plea was that a suit of mesne profits is governed by Article 51 of Limitation Act – Suit was laid on 10.04.1995, it was contented that for the period beyond 3 years before the date of the suit, the suit would be barred – Held : Landlord by the suit seeks to realise, what in law is described as damages for unauthorised occupation by the tenant after the expiry of the lease – It is not to be conflated to the profits received within the meaning of Article 51 of the Limitation Act, as it involves finding out the rate at which the landlord could have let out the premises – It would be the residuary Article, namely, Article 113, which should apply – Therefore, on facts it may not be possible to hold that the suit filed by the respondent, should still be found to fall under Article 51 of the Limitation Act and barred as regards part of the cause of action.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 928
Petitioner	Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Respondent	Sudera Realty Private Limited
SCR	[2022] 19 S.C.R. 462
Judgement Date	2022-09-06
Case Number	6199

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sudera Realty Private Limited

Please Log-in to view this content

Badri Lal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Indore

Union of India Vs. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

B.r. Chowdhury Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen

Anapurna Jaiswal Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Meena Kumari and Ors.

Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Indian Carbon Ltd.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Ncc Limited

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sudera Realty Private Limited

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sudera Realty Private Limited

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Badri Lal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Indore

Union of India Vs. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

B.r. Chowdhury Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen

Anapurna Jaiswal Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Meena Kumari and Ors.

Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Indian Carbon Ltd.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Ncc Limited

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sudera Realty Private Limited