SUPREME GENERAL FILMS EXCHANGE LTD V MAHARAJA BRIJNATH DEO, 1975, AIR 1975 SC 1810
FACTS
- A, the owners of an immovable property had borrowed a sum of R s. 2,50,000 from B on the strength of bales of cotton. As this security was not sufficient, they mortgaged the immovable property (theatre) in favour of B.
- A was unable to repay the loan and B filed a suit in 1954 that ended in a compromise in 1960, as per which the theatre was to be sold and the loan amount was to be realised from the sale proceeds.
- This theatre was in occupation of a tenant who had its possession since 1940. However, this possession since 1940, was under an unregistered lease deed for the purposes of running a cinema and had expired in 1946.
- Since then, no further lease deed had been executed in their favour till 1956. It was only in 1956 that in response to a suit for specific performance of contract filed by the tenant as against A, that A executed a registered lease deed in the tenant’s favour for a period of eight years with an option for renewal till 1970.
- It should be remembered that this property, with respect to which the lease was executed, was the subject matter of a dispute in a court of law from 1954 till 1960.
- Thus, the execution of the lease was during the pendency of the litigation. As this very property was kept as a security, with the mortgagee, and the mortgagee had caused the property to be sold with the help of the court, there was a right in specific immovable property directly and specifically in question.
- The tenant however contended that as they had an antecedent right on the property created with the help of a letter in 1948 itself, no new rights were created with the help of this registered lease deed.
- It was a mere continuation of an antecedent right and therefore the same was not hit by the rule of lis pendens even if it was executed during the pendency of the litigation. This lease deed, that was executed in pursuance to a suit filed by the tenant against A in 1954 itself, was seven months later to the filing of the suit by the mortgagee.
ISSUE
- Whether the case falls under the purview of S.52 of TPA, 1882?
HELD
- The old lease deed as it was unregistered was unable to take effect in law, it was not valid in law.
- The right created in 1956 by lease was hit by pendente lite and therefore, was invalid.
- The theatre in question was attached in execution of decree in 1955 and this attachment was in existence when the impugned lease was executed in 1956.
- Therefore, the tenant is subject to the decision of court and so will have to vacate the land.