Shivprakash Shukla & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 304 MP

                                                       1                               F.A.No.148/1998




       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR

     BEFORE : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH



                                 First Appeal No.148/1998


                             Shivprakash Shukla & another

                                                   vs.

                                   Union of India & ors.
..............................................................................................................
                     Shri S.P. Rai, counsel for the appellants.
                                None for the respondents.
..............................................................................................................
                                    J U D G M E N T

06.01.2022 This first appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.02.1998 passed in Civil Suit No.11-A/88 by the First Additional District Judge, Sagar, whereby, the suit for recovery of rent filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

2. It was the case of the appellants that they were owner of the house situated in Varni colony, Sagar. On Laxman Singh, the then Assistant Collector approached them to take first floor of their house on rent wherefor, allegedly, a deed was executed by him (Ex.P-I). Rent was settled as Rs.4139/- per month. Some modifications were sought by the lessee which were done by the lessor/plaintiff/appellants by investing about Rs.3,50,000/- but thereafter, even after repeated request and a notice being served, the

respondents neither took the possession of the premises nor paid the rent. Thereafter, appellants following due process of law, filed a Civil Suit for recovery of rent for the period starting from 6.11.1987 to 05.05.1988 (i.e. 06 months) @ 4,139/- per month, total amounting to Rs.24,834/-. A prayer was also made to direct the respondents to take the possession of the premises of the plaintiffs therein.

3. The suit was replied in the manner that the Assistant Collector was not authorized to execute any deed. Vide notification No.3442 dated 02.11.1953, the Union of India, Ministry of Law had only authorized Collector or Deputy Collector to execute any agreement on behalf of the Central Excise Department. Any agreement executed by any other officer was not binding on the Union of India and the same was void ab initio in absence of any authorization. The respondents had never taken possession of the alleged premises, therefore, they are not responsible for any rent due to the appellants. On these grounds, prayer was made for dismissal of suit.

4. The trial Court framed following issues:

**1- D;k fnukad 6-11-87 dks rkRdkyhu vflLVsUV dysDVj lsUVy ,DlkbZt lkxj }kjk oknhx.k ls fd, x, fyf[kr djkj ds izdk'k esa oknhx.k 4139=00 :i;s ekfld dh nj ls 6-11-87 ls 5-5-1988 rd dk 24834=00 :i;s fdjk;k izfroknhx.k ls olwy djus ds gdnkj gSaA 2- D;k fnukad 6-5-88 ls oknhx.k ls 4139=00 :i;s ekfld dh nj ls izfroknh ls varoZrhZ ykHk ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSA**

5. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court observing that executor of the alleged lease deed Ex.P-I was not authorized to execute such lease deed on behalf of the Union of India or the respondents.

6. Admittedly, no possession in furtherance to the alleged lease deed Ex.P-I has ever been taken by the respondents.

7. There is nothing on record to show that Laxman Singh was an authorized person to execute the lease deed on behalf of the respondents. The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Laxman Singh was an employee of the government. He approached the appellants and as per his directions, modifications were effected in the premises by spending a considerable money. Therefore, now they cannot be deprived of atleast the compensation as prayed for in the plaint. But, infact Laxman Singh is not a party to the suit and any lease deed executed by him or any direction given or complied with by the lessor is not binding upon the government because Laxman Singh was not an authorized person to do the alleged act on behalf of the Union of India. Therefore, no illegality or perversity appears in the impugned order.

8. The appeal sans merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly.

(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE anand Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN Date: 2022.01.11 11:20:06 +05'30'