Auction – Agreement to lease executed by Appellant in respect of a plot in favour of M/s Mehta Constructions – However, lease in terms of such agreement was never executed – Subsequent sale deed executed by M/s Mehta Constructions in favour of second respondent – Second respondent went into liquidation, and the plot was sold to first respondent in the auction in liquidation proceedings on “as it is basis” – Whether first respondent entitled to any right in respect of the plot: Held: It is an accepted position that the lease was never executed by the appellant in favour of M/s Mehta Constructions, and no rights, title, and interest were created in favour of M/s Mehta Constructions in respect of the said plot – Therefore, at the highest, the second respondent, by virtue of the sale deed dated 15th February 1985, executed by M/s Mehta Constructions, can claim benefits under the lease agreement, provided in law, the second respondent is entitled to it in accordance with law – As far as auction conducted in liquidation proceedings of the second respondent is concerned, the notice of proclamation itself records that the sale of the said plot was on “as it is basis” – Moreover, the order dated 19th October 2001 of the Company Judge makes sale absolute in favour of the first respondent – Therefore, the first respondent will get only those rights which M/s Mehta Constructions had under the lease agreement, provided the rights can be claimed at this stage – The first respondent is not entitled to either ownership or leasehold rights in respect of the said plot – The first respondent cannot claim to be a lessee as the lease in terms of the lease agreement was never executed – At the same time, if according to the case of the appellant, M/s Mehta Constructions had committed breach of the lease agreement, notwithstanding the impugned orders, it will be always open for the appellant to adopt appropriate remedy for recovery of possession and/or recovery of unearned income against the first respondent – If the first respondent desires to get the transaction regularised, it is for the first respondent to apply to the appellant to accept unearned income or any other amount – If such a request is made, the appellant will consider the same in accordance with the law. [Paras 11, 12, 14, 15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.