{"id":173670,"date":"1980-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980"},"modified":"2018-06-07T14:12:03","modified_gmt":"2018-06-07T08:42:03","slug":"narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980","title":{"rendered":"Narendra Bahadur Tandon vs Shankerlal (Since Deceased) By … on 25 January, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Narendra Bahadur Tandon vs Shankerlal (Since Deceased) By … on 25 January, 1980<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 575, \t\t 1980 SCR (2) 821<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNARENDRA BAHADUR TANDON\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHANKERLAL (SINCE DECEASED) BY LRS. AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/01\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR  575\t\t  1980 SCR  (2) 821\n 1980 SCC  (2) 253\n\n\nACT:\n     Lease-Land\t leased\t  to  a\t company-Company  went\tinto\nvoluntary  liquidation-Land   transferred  to\tone  of\t the\nCreditors,  a\tBank-Bank  went\t  into\tliquidation-Official\nliquidator of  Bank found  no  deed  of\t transfer  executed-\nVoluntary liquidator  executed deed of transfer-If competent\nto do  so-Property if  passed to  state by  escheat-Lessor's\ninterest transferred  to plaintiffs-Official liquidator sold\nland  to  defendant-Defendant  raised  structures  on  land-\nPlaintiffs  never   objected  to   raising  of\t structures-\nPlaintiffs, if\testopped from  contending that defendant had\nno right in land.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The original  owners of  the land\tin dispute granted a\npermanent lease\t of the\t land to a company. The lessee could\nuse the\t land for  any purpose\tand could  also transfer the\nleasehold interest.  Though a  permanent  lease\t the  lessor\ncould forfeit the lease if the lessee failed to pay rent for\nthree consecutive  years. The lessors interest changed hands\ntwice and  by virtue  of a  decree in a suit for pre-emption\nfiled by  the  respondents  they  became  entitled  to\tsuch\ninterest.\n     In\t the  meanwhile\t the  company  went  into  voluntary\nliquidation and the liquidator executed an agreement of sale\nof all its assets including the leasehold interest in favour\nof a  Bank which  was the  biggest creditor  of the Company.\nImmediately   thereafter   the\t Bank\titself\t went\tinto\nliquidation. Sometime  later the  official liquidator of the\nBank found  that no  deed of  transfer was  executed by\t the\nvoluntary liquidator  in favour\t of the\t Bank, the erstwhile\nvoluntary liquidator  therefore executed  a deed  of sale in\nfavour of  the Bank.  Thereafter the  official liquidator of\nthe Bank  transferred the lease-hold interest in the land to\nthe defendant-appellant.\n     Before the\t company went  into  liquidation  the  first\ntransferee of  the land\t accepted rent\tfrom  the  voluntary\nliquidator. After  the transfer of the leasehold interest to\nthe Bank  the second  transferee demanded  from the official\nliquidator arrears  of rent  for four years and claimed that\nthe lease  was forfeited  by reason of the Bank's failure to\npay rent  for a continuous period of three years in terms of\nthe lease.  The official  liquidator  denied  the  right  to\nforfeit the lease. He, however, paid rent which was accepted\nby the\tlessors. Even  subsequently rent was accepted by the\nlessors.\n     The respondent  sued to  recover possession of the suit\nland on\t the ground  that the  lease-hold interest  was\t not\nvalidly transferred  by the  voluntary liquidator  and\tthat\ntherefore neither  the Bank  nor the  defendant acquired any\nright  in  the\tland.  The  defendants\tcontended  that\t the\nvoluntary liquidator had the authority in law to execute the\ndeed of\t sale and  formally complete a transaction which had\nalready taken  place, that  the predecessors  in interest of\nthe  plaintiff\t having\t accepted  rent\t from  the  official\nliquidator were estopped\n822\nfrom contending\t that the transfer in favour of the Bank was\nnot valid  and that  the lease-hold interest in the land had\nescheated to  the  Government  on  the\tdissolution  of\t the\ncompany.\n     The suit  was dismissed  by the  Trial  Court  and\t the\nAppellate Court.  On second  appeal, the  High Court decreed\nthe suit  holding  that\t the  voluntary\t liquidator  had  no\nauthority to  execute the deed of sale after the dissolution\nof the\tcompany and  that there\t was  neither  estopped\t nor\nescheat.\n     Allowing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The High\t Court was right in holding that the\nliquidator had\tno jurisdiction\t to execute the deed of sale\nafter the  company had\tbeen dissolved. Once the company was\ndissolved in  accordance with the procedure laid down in the\nIndian Companies  Act, 1913 it ceased to exist and therefore\nthe voluntary  liquidator could not represent a non-existent\ncompany. If  the liquidator  was to  discharge any  duty  or\nperform any  function on  behalf of the dissolved company he\nshould have  express statutory\tauthority to do so, which he\ndid not have under the Act. [826 D, 825 G]\n     2. If  the company\t had a\tsubsisting interest  in\t the\nlease  on  the\tdate  of  dissolution,\tsuch  interest\tmust\nnecessarily vest  in  the  Government  by  escheat  or\tbona\nvacantia. It  is  well\tsettled\t that  the  property  of  an\nintestate  dying   without  leaving  lawful  heirs  and\t the\nproperty of a dissolved corporation passes to the Government\nby escheat  or bona  vacantia. If the lease-hold interest of\ncompany became\tvested in the Government on its dissolution,\na  suit\t  at  the   instance  of   the\tplaintiffs  was\t not\nmaintainable. [826 E, 827 G]\n     3. The  successors in  interest of the original lessors\naccepted rent  from the\t official liquidator indicating that\nthey accepted  the position  that the  Bank had succeeded to\nthe rights  of the  company in\tthe lease-hold interest. The\nofficial liquidator  sold the land to the defendant with the\npermission of  the Company  Judge only when he failed to get\nthe highest  bid in  public auction. At no point of time did\nthe predecessors  in interest  of the  plaintiffs  raise  an\nobjection to  the sale\tof the lease-hold interest. When the\ndefendant obtained  permission of  the Municipal  Board\t and\nraised constructions on the land, the plaintiffs who resided\nnear-about the\tland did  not raise  any  objection  to\t the\nconstructions. In  the\tcircumstances  the  plaintiffs\twere\nestopped from  contending that the defendant had no right in\nthe land. Their only right is to receive rent. [827 F-828 B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 575 of
\n1970.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Decree dated  17-2-1966 of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 92 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
     S. S. Javali and B. R. Aggarwal for the Appellant.
\n     R. K. Garg and V. J. Francis for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHINNAPPA\tREDDY,\tJ.  Hulas  Chand  and  Bilas  Chand,
\noriginal owners\t of a  certain plot  of land  in Saharanpur,
\ngranted a  permanent lease  of the land to Patel Mills Ltd.,
\nin May, 1930. The annual rent
\n823<\/span>
\nwas Rs.\t 75\/-. The  lease was  empowered to use the land for
\nany purpose  whatsoever.  The  rights  of  the\tlessee\twere
\nexpressly made transferable. Though the lease was permanent,
\nthere was  a condition\tthat the  lessor could\tforfeit\t the
\nlease if the lessee failed to pay rent for three consecutive
\nyears. On  November 1,\t1932 Hulas  Chand  and\tBilas  Chand
\ntransferred their  interest to\tBudh Singh and Jialal. Jugal
\nKishore, became\t entitled to  the rights  of Budh  Singh and
\nJialal by purchase under sale deeds dated April 17, 1943 and
\nMay  11,   1943.  But,\tShankerlal  and\t Piareylal  (present
\nplaintiff) filed  a suit for presumption against the vendors
\nand Jugal  Kishore and\tas a  result of the decree passed in
\nthe suit,  they became\tentitled to the lessor’s interest in
\nthe suit plot of land on August 13, 1945.\n<\/p>\n
     Meanwhile the  lessee Patel Mills went into liquidation
\nand Mehra  was appointed voluntary liquidator of the company
\non May\t11, 1937 by a special resolution at a meeting of the
\ncreditors of the company. Benaras Bank Ltd., was the biggest
\ncreditor of  the Company.  So the  liquidator negotiated the
\nsale of\t all the  assets of  the Company to the Benaras Bank
\nLtd., for  a sum  of Rs.  70,000\/- and\ton February 23, 1939
\nexecuted  an   agreement  of   sale  after   receiving\t the
\nconsideration. The  lease-hold interest in the suit plot was
\nalso included as one of the assets in the agreement of sale.
\nAs a  meeting held on May 4, 1939 the creditors accepted the
\nfinal report  of the  voluntary liquidator.  The report\t was
\nsent  to   the\tRegistrar  of  Joint  Stock  Companies,\t and
\nregistered on  September 9,  1939. The\tcompany\t thus  stood
\ndissolved with effect from December 9, 1939. Subsequently on
\nMarch 1,  1940\tthe  Benaras  Bank  Ltd,  itself  went\tinto
\nliquidation. The  Official Liquidator  of the  Benaras\tBank
\nLtd. found  that there was no duly executed deed of transfer
\nexecuted by  the voluntary  liquidator\tof  the\t company  in
\nfavour of the Benaras Bank Ltd. in respect of the lease-hold
\ninterest in  the suit  plot of\tland. At the instance of the
\nofficial liquidator  of the  bank, Shri\t Mehra the erstwhile
\nvoluntary liquidator  of the company executed a deed of sale
\non January  28, 1941 and had it duly registered. On March 9,
\n1943 the  official  liquidator\ttransferred  the  lease-hold
\ninterest  in  the  suit\t plot  of  land\t to  the  defendant-
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t have\tmentioned  that\t  Patel\t Mills\tLtd.,  stood
\ndissolved with\teffect from December 9, 1939. Budh Singh and
\nJialal had  earlier, i.e.  on April  12, 1939, accepted rent
\nfrom the  voluntary liquidator\tof the\tcompany.  After\t the
\ndissolution of\tthe company  and the  transfer of  the lease
\nhold interest  by the  voluntary liquidator  to the  Benaras
\nBank Ltd.  Budh Singh and Jialal sent a notice dated January
\n11, 1941  to the liquidator of the Benaras Bank Ltd. through
\ntheir lawyer  demanding payment\t of arrears of rent for four
\nyears and asserting that the 15-91SCI\/80
\n824<\/span>
\nlease was  forfeited consequent\t on the\t lessee’s failure to
\npay rent  for  a  continuous  period  of  three\t years.\t The
\nliquidator denied  the claim  of  right\t of  the  lessor  to
\nforfeit the  lease but admitted the claim for rent. Rent was
\naccordingly paid  and was accepted by Budh Singh and Jialal.
\nLater, on  March 21,  1946, Jugal  Kishore who had purchased
\nthe rights  of Budh Singh and Jialal also accepted rent from
\nthe official liquidator of the Benaras Bank Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
     Shankerlal and  Piarey Lal\t who became  entitled to the
\nlessor’s interest  in the  suit plot  of land as a result of
\nthe decree  from pre-emption  which  they  obtained  against
\nJugal Kishore  and his\tvendors, filed the suit out of which
\nthe appeal  arises to  recover possession of the land. Their
\ncase was  that the  lease hold\tinterest in the land was not
\nvalidly\t transferred   by  the\t voluntary  liquidator\t and
\ntherefore, the defendant acquired no right in the land.\n<\/p>\n
     Several defences  were raised.  It was claimed that the
\nvoluntary liquidator had the authority in law to execute the
\ndeed of\t sale and  formally complete a transaction which had
\nalready\t taken\t place.\t It   was  also\t  claimed  that\t the
\npredecessors  in  the  interest\t of  the  plaintiffs  having
\naccepted rent  from the official liquidator of the bank, the
\nplaintiffs were\t estopped from\tcontending that the transfer
\nin favour of the bank was not valid. Section 53A Transfer of
\nProperty Act  was also invoked as a defence to the action of
\nthe plaintiffs.\t It was\t lastly pleaded\t that the plaintiffs
\nhad no\tright  to  sue\tfor  possession\t as  the  lease-hold
\ninterest in  the land had escheated to the Government on the
\ndissolution of\tthe Company.  The suit\twas dismissed by the
\nTrial Court. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court were
\naffirmed by  the 1st  Appellate Court  and a  learned single
\nJudge of the High Court in second appeal. The learned Single
\nJudge found  in favour\tof the\tdefendant on the question of
\nestopped, escheat  and authority of the voluntary liquidator
\nto execute  the sale deed but found against the defendant on
\nthe applicability of s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
\nOn appeal  by the  plaintiffs under clause 10 of the Letters
\nPatent a  Division Bench  of the  High\tCourt  reversed\t the
\njudgment and  decree of\t the Subordinate  Courts and decreed
\nthe  suit.  The\t Division  Bench  held\tthat  the  voluntary
\nliquidator had\tno authority  to execute  the deed  of\tsale
\nafter the  dissolution of  the company\tand that  there\t was
\nneither estopped  nor escheat.\tThe Division Bench also held
\nthat s.\t 53A of the Transfer of Property Act did not protect
\nthe defendant. The defendant has preferred this appeal after
\nobtaining a  certificate from  the  High  Court\t under\tArt.
\n133(1)(b) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     The submissions  of Shri Javali learned counsel for the
\nappellant on  the question of applicability of s. 53A of the
\nTransfer of Property
\n825<\/span>
\nAct and\t the authority of the voluntary liquidator after the
\ndissolution of\tthe company  to execute the deed of sale may
\nbe easily  disposed of.\t We do\tnot think that s. 53A of the
\nTransfer of  Property Act  is attracted\t to the facts of the
\npresent case.  The right  under s.  53A is available against
\nthe transferor\t(effecting the\tincomplete transfer) and any
\nperson claiming under him. It is difficult to understand how
\nthe successor-in-interest  of a lessor can ever be said to a
\nperson claiming under a lessee making an incomplete transfer
\nof the\tlease-hold interest.  Nor do  we find  force in\t the
\nsubmission  of\t the  learned  counsel\tthat  the  voluntary
\nliquidator had\tlegal authority,  after dissolution  of\t the
\ncompany to  execute the\t deed of  sale\tso  as\tto  formally
\ncomplete the  transaction which\t had  already  been  entered
\ninto. Reliance\twas placed  by the  learned counsel  for the
\nappellant on  the decision  of Farwell,\t J., in\t Pulsford v.
\nDemanish(1). In\t that case  a liquidator was guilty of gross
\ndereliction of\tduty. In  the words  of Farwell\t J., “A more
\ngross dereliction  of duty  by a  liquidator I\thave  seldom
\nheard of”.  Though in possession of sufficient assets of the
\nliquidating company  to\t pay  all  its\tdebts  in  full\t the
\nliquidator took\t no steps  to ascertain the creditors of the
\nliquidating company  or to  see that they were paid. Instead
\nhe sold\t the  business\tand  assets  of\t the  company  to  a
\npurchasing company  who covenanted  to pay all the debts and
\nliabilities  of\t the  liquidating  company.  The  purchasing
\ncompany did  not pay  the debts. The liquidating company was
\ndissolved. The\tcreditors had  no remedy by which they could
\nrecover their  debts. A\t creditor of the liquidating company
\nsued the  liquidator for  recovery of  damages. It  was held
\nthat  the   liquidator\twas  guilty  of\t negligence  in\t the
\ndischarge of his statutory duty and was liable in damages to
\nthe unpaid  creditors of  the liquidating  company. What was
\ndecided\t in  the  case\twas  not  that\ta  liquidator  could
\nrepresent the  erstwhile company  after it was dissolved but
\nthat a\tliquidator could  be sued in damages for breach of a
\nstatutory  duty\t  which\t he  had  failed  to  perform  while
\nfunctioning as liquidator. We do not think that this case is
\nof any\tassistance  to\tthe  appellant.\t We  are  unable  to
\nappreciate  how\t  after\t the   company\twas   dissolved\t the
\nliquidator could  still claim  to represent  the company and
\nexecute a  registered deed  of sale.  Once the\tcompany\t was
\ndissolved it  ceased to\t exist and  the liquidator could not
\nrepresent a  non-existing company.  If the liquidator was to
\ndischarge any  duty or perform any function on behalf of the
\ndissolved  company   he\t should\t  have\t express   statutory
\nauthority. The\tCompanies Act  1913 contained  no  provision
\nenabling the  liquidator to  do\t any  act  on  behalf  of  a
\ndissolved company.  S. 209(H)  of the  Companies  Act,\t1913
\nenjoined the  liquidator as  soon  as  the  affairs  of\t the
\ncompany were  wound up\tto make up an account of the winding
\nup and to call a gene-\n<\/p>\n
826<\/span><\/p>\n
ral meeting  of the  company and  a meeting of the creditors
\nfor the\t purpose of laying the accounts before the meetings.
\nThe liquidator\twas then required to send to the Registrar a
\ncopy of\t the account  and to  make a  return to\t him of\t the
\nholding of  the meetings.  The Registrar  on  receiving\t the
\naccounts and the returns was required to register them an on
\nthe expiration\tof three  months of registration the company
\nwas to\tbe deemed  as dissolved. The only duty cast upon the
\nliquidator thereafter  was that under s. 244(B). It was that
\nthe liquidator\tshould on the dissolution of the company pay
\ninto the Reserve Bank of India, to the credit of the Central
\nGovernment in  an account  called the  Companies Liquidation
\nAccount any  money representing\t unclaimed dividend  or\t any
\nundistributed assets in his hands on the day of dissolution.
\nNo  other  duty\t was  stipulated  to  be  performed  by\t the
\nliquidator under  the provisions of the Companies Act, 1913,
\nafter the  dissolution of  the company.\t We are,  therefore,
\nunable to  agree with  the submission of the learned counsel
\nthat the liquidator had the jurisdiction to execute the deed
\nof sale\t dated January\t28, 1941  after the company had been
\ndissolved.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  question which  we must\tconsider is what was
\nthe effect  of the  dissolution of the company on the lease-
\nhold interest  which the company had in the land. No term of
\nthe lease  has been brought to our notice by which the lease
\nwould stand  extinguished on the dissolution of the company.
\nIf the company had a subsisting interest in the lease on the
\ndate of\t dissolution such  interest must necessarily vest in
\nthe Government\tby escheat or as bona vacantia. In India the
\nlaw is\twell settled that the property of an intestate dying
\nwithout leaving lawful heirs and the property of a dissolved
\nCorporation passes  to the  Government by escheat or as bona
\nvacantia. Of  course such property will be subject to trusts
\nand charges,  if any,  previously effecting  its  vide\tM\/s.
\nPierce Leslie  & Co.  Ltd., v. Violat Ouchterlong Wapshare &
\nOrs.(1). It is also to be noticed here that s. 244(B) of the
\nCompanies Act  1913, as\t well as  s. 555(2) of the Companies
\nAct 1956  expressly enjoin  a  duty  on\t the  liquidator  to
\ndeposit, on  the dissolution of the company, into an account
\nin  the\t Reserve  Bank\tof  India  known  as  the  Companies
\nLiquidation Account  any money\trepresenting unpaid dividend
\nor undisputed  assets lying  in his  hands at  the  time  of
\ndissolution. The  learned counsel  for the  appellant relied
\nupon the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Tulshi Ram
\nSahu & Anr. v. Gur Dayal Singh & Anr.(2) and Mussamat Ramman
\nBibi v.\t Mathura Prasad\t & Anr.(3). Both were cases of fixed
\nrate tenancies. As pointed out
\n827<\/span>
\nby the\tFull Bench  in Tulsi  Ram Sahu\t& Anr.\tv. Gur Dayal
\nSingh &\t Anr.,(1) one  of the  incidents  of  a\t fixed\trate
\ntenancy was  that provided  by s. 18 of the Agra Tenancy Act
\n1901 which  prescribed that a right of occupancy would stand
\nextinguished when  a fixed-rate\t tenant died leaving no heir
\nentitled under the Act to inherit the right of occupancy. It
\nfollowed therefrom  that the  land  had\t to  revert  to\t the
\nlandlord and  could not\t go to the Government by escheat. On
\nthe other  hand in  Sonet Kooer v. Himmat Bahadur & ors.(2).
\nThe Privy  Council held\t that on  the failure  of heirs to a
\ntenant holding land under Mukerrori Tenure there was nothing
\nin the\tnature of  the tenure which prevented the Crown from
\ntaking the  Mukerrori by  escheat, subject to the payment of
\nrent to\t the Zamindar.\tIf the\tlease-hold interest  of\t the
\ncompany in  the land  became vested in the government on the
\ndissolution of\tthe company  it must follow that the suit at
\nthe instance of the plaintiffs was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  question for  consideration  is\twhether\t the
\nplaintiffs were\t estopped from\tdenying the  validity of the
\nsale in\t favour of  the Benaras Bank Ltd., and the character
\nof the\tpossession  of\tthe  Benaras  Bank.  Ltd.,  and\t its
\nsuccessors in interest. As already mentioned by us Budhsingh
\nand Jialal  sent a  notice dated  January 11,  1941, through
\ntheir lawyer demanding of the liquidator of the Benaras Bank
\nLtd.,  payment\tof  arrears  of\t rent  for  four  years\t and
\nasserting that\tthe lease  was forfeited  consequent on\t the
\nlessee’s failure  to pay  rent for  a continuous  period  of
\nthree years. The liquidator denied the claim of right of the
\nlessor to forfeit the lease but admitted the claim for rent.
\nThe liquidator\tpaid the  rent and  it was  accepted by Budh
\nSingh and  Jialal. Later  also the evidence shows that Jugal
\nKishore the  purchaser\tfrom  Budh  Singh  and\tJialal\talso
\naccepted rent  from the\t official liquidator  of the Benaras
\nBank Ltd.  This course\tof conduct  of Budh Singh and Jialal
\nand their  successor Jugal  Kishore  clearly  indicates\t the
\nacceptance, by\tthem, of  the position that the Benaras Bank
\nLtd. had  succeeded to\tthe rights  of the  company  in\t the
\nlease-hold interest. Further, the official liquidator of the
\nBenaras Bank  Ltd. said\t first tried  to sell the lease-hold
\ninterest by  public auction. When that sale did not fructify
\nbecause of  the failure of the highest bidder to deposit the
\nsale  price,   the  lease-hold\tinterest  was  sold  to\t the
\ndefendant with\tthe sanction  of the  Company Judge.  At  no
\npoint  of  time\t did  the  predecessors-in-interest  of\t the
\nplaintiffs raise  the slightest objection to the sale of the
\nleas-hold interest.  It was  thereafter that  the  defendant
\nobtained the permission
\n828<\/span>
\nof the\tMunicipal Board, Saharanpur, and raised construction
\non the\tland. The  plaintiffs themselves  admittedly  reside
\nnear about  the land  in dispute.  They did  not  raise\t any
\nobjection  to\tthe  raising   of  the\t constructions.\t The
\nplaintiffs as  well as the defendants appeared to proceed on
\nthe common  understanding that\tthe defendants had succeeded
\nto the\tinterest of  Patel Mills  Ltd.,\t in  the  lease-hold
\ninterest. We are, therefore, of the view that the plaintiffs
\nwere estopped  from contending\tthat the  defendant  had  no
\ninterest in  land. The\tamount only  right of the plaintiffs
\nwas to\treceive the  rent. The\tresult of  our discussion is
\nthat the  appeal is  allowed and  the suit is dismissed with
\ncosts throughout.  It  is,  however,  made  clear  that\t the
\nplaintiffs  have   the\tright\tto  receive  rent  from\t the
\ndefendants.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n829<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Narendra Bahadur Tandon vs Shankerlal (Since Deceased) By … on 25 January, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 575, 1980 SCR (2) 821 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: NARENDRA BAHADUR TANDON Vs. RESPONDENT: SHANKERLAL (SINCE DECEASED) BY LRS. AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/01\/1980 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-173670","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNarendra Bahadur Tandon vs Shankerlal (Since Deceased) By ... on 25 January, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Narendra Bahadur Tandon vs Shankerlal (Since Deceased) By ... on 25 January, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1980-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-07T08:42:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Narendra Bahadur Tandon vs Shankerlal (Since Deceased) By … on 25 January, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-07T08:42:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980\"},\"wordCount\":2634,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980\",\"name\":\"Narendra Bahadur Tandon vs Shankerlal (Since Deceased) By ... on 25 January, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-07T08:42:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Narendra Bahadur Tandon vs Shankerlal (Since Deceased) By … on 25 January, 1980\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Narendra Bahadur Tandon vs Shankerlal (Since Deceased) By ... on 25 January, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Narendra Bahadur Tandon vs Shankerlal (Since Deceased) By ... on 25 January, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-07T08:42:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Narendra Bahadur Tandon vs Shankerlal (Since Deceased) By … on 25 January, 1980","datePublished":"1980-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-07T08:42:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980"},"wordCount":2634,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980","name":"Narendra Bahadur Tandon vs Shankerlal (Since Deceased) By ... on 25 January, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-07T08:42:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-bahadur-tandon-vs-shankerlal-since-deceased-by-on-25-january-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Narendra Bahadur Tandon vs Shankerlal (Since Deceased) By … on 25 January, 1980"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173670","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=173670"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173670\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173670"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173670"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173670"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}