Full Name		Full Name is required
Email ID		Email ID required Invalid Email is ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City		City required
Mobile No		Mobile No is required Invalid Mobile No
	* Mobile No is required for verification of identity

Head Note

Civil Law  - Public Premises

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Section 7 -The original lessee has been in unauthorised occupation of the property in question for around 30 years (till he executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent) and the respondent has been illegally inducted in possession of the same, by the original lessee, who himself was in unauthorised possession of the property. For around 17 years the respondent has been enjoying the property in question without any right, title or interest. Thus, both are liable to pay the damages for unauthorised occupation.

Civil Law  - Renewal of lease

Renewal of lease - Delhi Improvement Trust vide lease deed granted lease of plot no.2, Jhandewalan "E" Block, Delhi in favour of original lessee , however, the DDA terminated the lease of the said land on account of non-observation of the terms and conditions contained in the lease deed - The order passed by the High Court holding that acceptance of rent by the DDA pursuant to a demand made by it amounts to a renewal of lease in respect of the property in question - In challenge - The property in question, vested in the DDA, is a Nazul land and as per clause III(b) of the lease deed and Sections 21 and 22 of the DD Act read with Rule 43 of the Nazul Land Rules there cannot be an automatic renewal of lease in favour of the original lessee once it stands terminated by efflux of time and also by issuing notice terminating the lease. Since, the power conferred by the DD Act upon DDA to grant lease includes renewal of lease and in the absence of such a renewal of lease of the property in question in favour of the original lessee, as required in law, there cannot be an automatic renewal of the same in his favour - The sale of the property in question to give effect to the compromise decree in aforesaid suit is void ab initio in law for the reason that the original lessee, in the absence of renewal of lease in his favour himself had no right, title or interest, at the time of execution of sale deed, in respect of the property in question, thus, the very concept of conversion of leasehold rights to freehold rights is not applicable to the fact situation - The impugned judgment and decree of the High Court affirming the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court set aside - Appeal allowed.

Topic(s)-