Summary
The Court upheld termination of a government forest-land lease after the lessee sold 50 acres without prior written permission. The lease’s opportunity to remedy certain defaults did not require allowing reversal of this prohibited assignment before termination. Mere receipt of lump-sum rent did not establish waiver on the record. Recognition of the partnership as lessee was, however, sustained. The State’s principal appeals were partly allowed by restoring the Single Judge’s order; separate appeals concerning interim protection were disposed of without deciding their merits.
Issues
- Whether an unauthorised sale of part of the leased forest land justified termination of the entire lease.
- Whether the lease required an opportunity to cure that assignment and whether acceptance of rent established waiver.
- Whether recognition of the partnership as lessee itself constituted a prohibited transfer.
Provisions considered
- Section 111(g), Transfer of Property Act, 1882The forfeiture provision did not require restricting termination to the alienated portion; equitable relief depended on the lease and the particular circumstances. (¶¶ 17, 25, 26, 30)
- Section 112 and its provisos, Transfer of Property Act, 1882Waiver required a factual foundation establishing knowing conduct treating the lease as subsisting. Mere receipt of rent in these circumstances did not establish waiver. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20)
Held
- The partnership was not shown to have been subsequently created to defeat the assignment restriction. The earlier transaction and the Government’s own documents treated it as lessee; the High Court’s conclusion rejecting that alleged breach was maintained. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Read as a whole, the lease distinguished rectifiable defaults concerning maintenance of the forest property from an assignment prohibited without prior written permission. Clause 12 did not make an opportunity to reverse the latter breach mandatory before exercising the termination right. (¶¶ 12, 13, 15, 16, 24)
- The registered sale deed transferred rights and possession, and the lessee’s correspondence acknowledged the need for reconveyance. The assertion that possession never passed was rejected; no concrete cancellation or restoration of possession had been demonstrated. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24)
- Waiver could not be inferred merely from payment and receipt of rent for the entire estate. The requisite factual case had not been laid before the original authority, rent remained payable for the retained area, and innocuous receipt by government offices did not establish an intention to condone the breach. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- The unauthorised outright sale of government land within a reserved forest justified termination of the whole lease on these terms. The authorities concerning different private transactions did not require confining forfeiture to the sold portion. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
- The Division Bench’s order was set aside and the Single Judge’s order restored, partly allowing the principal appeals. In the separate interim-order appeals, status quo was continued pending the High Court’s determination on its own merits; those merits were left open. (¶¶ 31, 32)
Result
Principal State appeals partly allowed; Single Judge’s order sustaining lease termination restored. Separate interim-order appeals disposed of with status quo continued pending adjudication; no costs.