Skip to main content

An older agreement will get terminated before a new agreement on the same subject-matter in case of contradiction

Citation : Smt. Sashi Jain @ Shashi Jain v. Sandip Sarkar, F.A. 55 of 2017

Date of Judgment/Order : 02-03-2022

Court/Tribunal : High Court Of Calcutta - Appellate Side

Corum: Soumen Sen & Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee J.

Background

The plaintiff/respondent being the landlord had filed a suit for eviction of the defendant/appellant before the Small Causes Court at Calcutta. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant agreed buy the said floor for a consideration of Rs.13 lakhs. The parties thereafter executed an agreement for sale wherein it was agreed th Rs.13 lakhs shall be paid in instalments within November, 2008 and a sum of Rs.5 lakhs shall be paid within March 2007 as a condition precedent. Till the entire consideration money is paid and the sale agreement is registered, the tenant had agreed to pay ‘occupancy charges’ at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month on and from January 2007 until payment of Rs.5 lakh and thereafter the ‘occupancy charges’ would get reduced by Rs.150/- per lakh. The plaintiff/respondent received Rs.40,000/- by cheque as the first installment. Admittedly, the balance consideration money was not paid. The defendant/appellant had also failed to make the payment of Rs.5 lakh within March 2007 as agreed between the parties. In view of such breach the plaintiff/respondent rescinded the said agreement and sued the defendant/appellant for recovery of possession.

The learned trial judge, on consideration of the evidence, held that by reason of the agreement for sale entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end, and the plaintiff was entitled to sue the defendant for recovery of possession upon establishing his right.

The Defendant appealed before the High Court against the order of the Trial court, arguing that that the intention of the parties was to continue with the relationship of the landlord and tenant until the execution of the sale deed. The agreement was unregistered and never acted upon. The termination of the agreement does not, ipso facto, give right to the landlord to evict the tenant on the ground of surrender of tenancy.

Judgment

The question before the High Court was whether the relationship of landlord and tenant gets altered when an agreement for sale is signed.

The High Court agreeing with the Trial Court observed that there cannot be any iota of doubt that the parties have consciously entered into the agreement for sale thereby altering their respective status. The agreement for sale was entered to at a point of time when the earlier suit for eviction was pending.

The appellant was in possession of the suit property and the acceptance of Rs.40,000/- as earnest money by the landlord clearly shows that such acceptance was made in terms of the agreement for sale and all other payments received are in terms of the said agreement. When the plaintiff/landlord accepted the sum he actually acted under the agreement for sale. This acceptance was preceded by agreement of sale, changing their relationship and this was what they had actually intended. 

The parties who have acted in terms of the agreement for sale and altered their relationship consciously cannot now go back to their old relationship and seek relief in terms of such relationship. There is a clear and conscious act on the part of the appellant to surrender her right as a tenant to acquire a superior right of an owner of the second floor of the suit premises.

Whenever a certain relationship exists between two parties in respect of a subject-matter and a new relationship arises as regards the identical subject-matter the two sets of mutually contra relationships cannot co-exist as being inconsistent and incompatible, that is to say, if the latter can come into effect only on termination of the earlier that would be deemed to have been terminated in order to enable the latter to operate. [See: Velu v Lekshmi & Ors., reported in AIR 1953 TRAVANCORE-COCHIN 584]


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more