Tax on advertisement
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 -- A tax on ‘advertisement’ other than those published in newspapers can also be imposed by a Municipal Corporation under Section 90 (1)(d) of the Act -- Section 122 (1) explains the incidence of tax on advertisements and it says that every person who erects, exhibits, fixes or retains upon or over any land, building, wall, boarding, frame, post or structure or any vehicle any advertisement or who displays any advertisement to public view in any other manner which is visible from a public street or public place including those exhibited by means of cinematograph, is liable to pay tax for every such advertisement at the rates to be specified by the State Government. Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 69 (P&H DB).
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 -- Dealer’s Board -- Trade, profession or business being carried on within the land, building, shop or outlet etc. also includes the trade, profession or business in the goods, services and/or any other taxable activity in relation to which the advertisement board has been erected, exhibited fixed or retained upon such land, building, shop or outlet, no Advertisement Tax can be levied in view of the proviso (c) to Section 122(1) of the Act -- Dealer Boards have been erected or displayed by it on the outlet, shops or buildings where one of the activity of the ‘business’ or ‘trade’ carried on includes the sale of the products marketed or distributed -- No Advertisement Tax is leviable on such Dealer Boards. Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 69 (P&H DB).
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 -- Interpretation of statute -- When the clear, plain and unambiguous words of a Statute are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning notwithstanding the hardship, inconvenience or other consequences. Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 69 (P&H DB).
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 -- Trade – Business – Meaning of -- ‘trade’ or ‘business’ are words of wide import and it cannot be said that only if sales are exclusively carried on in particular good in a building, it can be described as the ‘trade’ or ‘business’ -- “business” is a very spacious expression and in fiscal statutes, it must be construed in a broad rather than restricted sense to include anything which occupies the time, attention and labour of a man for the purpose of profit -- Word “trade” also includes the exchange of goods for goods or goods for money and in a secondary meaning it is any business carried on with a view to profit -- Even a single transaction or event falling within these parameters shall constitute ‘business’ or ‘trade’, as the case may be. Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 69 (P&H DB).
Tenancy rights are indivisible
Rent Laws -- Co-owner -- A co-owner is competent to induct tenant in part of whole of the building -- Tenant cannot be evicted from part of the tenant premises -- After a tenant has been inducted, he is a tenant under all the co-owners -- A co-owner who has not inducted a tenant can seek eviction of such tenant. Smt. Bachan Kaur and others v. Kabal Singh & Another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB).
Tenancy, not necessary to be by N.R.I.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act -- Petition u/s 13-B of the Act --Letting out is not a sine-qua-non to maintain eviction petition -- A co-owner NRI can seek eviction of the tenant in a building though the tenant was not inducted by such NRI and that it is not necessary that all other co-owners should be Non Resident Indians. Smt. Bachan Kaur and others v. Kabal Singh & Another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 263 (P&H DB).
Tenant’s permissible area
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Surplus land – Purchase of land -- Right of -- Right or entitlement of the petitioners to purchase land u/s 18 of the Punjab Act could have been invoked only if such land was declared as tenant permissible area -- Land was declared surplus and purchase thereof was allowed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners u/s 18 of the Punjab Act, this was not permissible -- If such a mode is left open, it would nullify the entire spirit behind the agrarian reform, it would be then open for any big land owner to sell his land which is declared surplus to any person by showing him tenant and Government would thus, be deprived of right to use this land for allotment and settling tenants. Fakiria & others v. The State of Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 583 (P&H).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Haryana Utilization of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1972 – Landlord’s permissible area – Right to Purchase/allotment -- A property held by a tenant is within the permissible area of the land owner and if it is specifically retained as falling with the reserved area, there is no question of the tenant making an assertion of a right for allotment under the Haryana Utilization of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1972. Ram Devi (through LRs) and another v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 667 (P&H).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Landlord’s permissible area – Ejectment -- Land owner was a displaced person, the land owner would be entitled to 50 standard acre or 100 ordinary acres -- If the land owner’s holding was in excess of the permissible area, the tenant could have had his own permissible area -- On the other hand, if the permissible area of the tenant was less than 50 standard acres, which fell within the permissible area of the landlord also, then the tenant could only treat himself to be a tenant, who was liable for ejectment under Section 9. Ram Devi (through LRs) and another v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 667 (P&H).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Landlord’s permissible area – Surplus area – Right of purchase of land by tenant -- Death of landlord – Effect of -- A tenant's right to obtain a compulsory purchase would by only in respect of properties which are available outside the permissible area of the landlord -- Permissible area for a tenant can be determined only after the landlord exercises his right under Section 5-B of the Act -- Before the determination is done, if the landowner has died and the succession has taken place, then by the scheme of the Act, inevitably, there has to be a redetermination of the landlord's permissible area in the hands of the legal heirs -- Determination shall precede the consideration of the tenant's right under Section 18. Baldev Raj and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana at Chandigarh, and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 698 (P&H).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Landlord’s permissible area – Surplus area – Determination of -- Sale of land by landlord – Right of transferee -- A transferee gets into the shoes of the transferors and he is entitled to protect his own rights to ensure that a reservation is so done that the property purchased by him falls within the reserved area -- Such a determination again could not have been done without allowing the purchaser to participate in the proceedings – Plea that a purchaser pendente lite cannot be heard at all, rejected. Baldev Raj and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana at Chandigarh, and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 698 (P&H).
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Landlord’s permissible area – Surplus area -- If there existed no surplus land, and the tenant cannot be protected to secure a benefit u/s 18 and if the landlords opt for action for ejectment, the tenant could still stake a claim under the relevant rules in the capacity as ejected tenant. Baldev Raj and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana at Chandigarh, and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 698 (P&H).
Tender of rent
Rent Laws -- Arrears of rent -- Eviction of tenant -- Date fixed for tendering of rent by the tenants was fixed at Sunday -- Rent Controller took up the case on the next working day, but on that date, the counsel for the tenants did not ask for fixing a date for proper orders, rather prayed for extension of time on the ground that the tenants has not come forward for the purpose of tendering rent due to death of a close relative – Tenant did not lead any prima facie evidence in this regard, it is possible that on that date the tenants were not having arrangement of the rent to be paid as it is evident, dispossession of the tenants was stayed subject to their clearing the entire arrears of rent within 10 days from the said date, but despite that order, the tenants tendered the rent beyond the period of 10 days – Eviction order, upheld. Surinder Kumar and another v. Smt. Leela Devi, 2011(3) L.A.R. 236 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Assessment of provisional rent – Jurisdiction of Rent Controller -- Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the period of time for the purpose of tendering provisionally assessed rent without there being any reason. Sanjeet Singh v. Mohali Motor Finance Co. and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 247 (P&H).
Rent Laws -- Holiday – Duties of the parties -- If the adjourned date is not an unanticipated holiday but a holiday already declared in the calendar for the judicial Courts for the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh or is a Sunday, then in that circumstance, Rule 4 of Chapter 1, Part K, Volume 1 of the Rules & Orders would not be applicable because it deals with only an unanticipated holiday and not a holiday which is already known -- In this regard, no rule is brought to the notice of the Court by the parties and in these circumstances, the parties appearing before the Court in such type of cases, can always pray for a date for proper orders. Surinder Kumar and another v. Smt. Leela Devi, 2011(3) L.A.R. 236 (P&H).
Termination of employee of Society
Co-operative Societies Laws -- Service dispute of an employee of Society -- Reference to Registrar -- Maintainability of -- Dispute relating to the termination or any other service dispute of an employee of the co-operative society is not referable to the arbitration because such disputes have nothing to do either with the constitution, management or business of the co-operative society. Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 1 (P&H FB).
Title dispute
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 -- Eviction of tenant – Resjudicata – Plea of – Maintainability of -- Whether the order passed in proceeding u/s 7 of the Act will operate as res judicata or as an estoppel in proceeding u/s 11 of the Act, is not res-integra – Section 7 of the Act is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction and therefore, cannot enter into the enquiry as to whether the land is shamlat or not -- Question of title decided by the Assistant Collector is prima facie and does not assume finality – U/s 7 the Collector is empowered to pass an order to put Panchayat in possession of the land which vests and is deemed to have been vested in, such provision pre-supposes the title of the Panchayat over the said property -- Jurisdiction of the Collector u/s 7 of the Act is analogous to the execution proceedings -- Disputed question of title over any land claimed to be shamlat or otherwise, is required to be adjudicated upon u/s 11 of the Act -- While providing alternative mode of adjudication of question of title of the land as shamlat or not, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was specifically barred – Held, in proceedings u/s 11 of the Act, the question of title is adjudicated upon in substitution of the proceedings before the Civil Court and the order passed in such proceeding alone is final and binding on the parties. Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 195 (P&H).
Trade
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 -- Tax on advertisement – Business – Meaning of -- ‘trade’ or ‘business’ are words of wide import and it cannot be said that only if sales are exclusively carried on in particular good in a building, it can be described as the ‘trade’ or ‘business’ -- “business” is a very spacious expression and in fiscal statutes, it must be construed in a broad rather than restricted sense to include anything which occupies the time, attention and labour of a man for the purpose of profit -- Word “trade” also includes the exchange of goods for goods or goods for money and in a secondary meaning it is any business carried on with a view to profit -- Even a single transaction or event falling within these parameters shall constitute ‘business’ or ‘trade’, as the case may be. Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 69 (P&H DB).
Transfer by Sale agreement/General Power of Attorney/ Will
Law summarized -- SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property – Held, Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance -- Transactions of the nature of ‘GPA sales’ or ‘SA/GPA/WILL transfers’ do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property -- Courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property – They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act -- Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records -- What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property -- A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease -- It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales -- SA/GPA/WILL transactions are not ‘transfers’ or ‘sales’ and that such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances -- They can continue to be treated as existing agreement of sale -- Nothing prevents affected parties from getting registered Deeds of Conveyance to complete their title -- The said ‘SA/GPA/WILL transactions’ may also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under section 53A of TP Act -- If they are entered before this day, they may be relied upon to apply for regularization of allotments/leases by Development Authorities -- Documents relating to ‘SA/GPA/WILL transactions’ has been accepted acted upon by DDA or other developmental authorities or by the Municipal or revenue authorities to effect mutation, they need not be disturbed, merely on account of this decision – However observations are not intended to in any way affect the validity of sale agreements and powers of attorney executed in genuine transactions -- For example, A person may give a power of attorney to his spouse, son, daughter, brother, sister or a relative to manage his affairs or to execute a deed of conveyance -- A person may enter into a development agreement with a land developer or builder for developing the land either by forming plots or by constructing apartment buildings and in that behalf execute an agreement of sale and grant a Power of Attorney empowering the developer to execute agreements of sale or conveyances in regard to individual plots of land or undivided shares in the land relating to apartments in favour of prospective purchasers -- In several States, the execution of such development agreements and powers of attorney are already regulated by law and subjected to specific stamp duty -- Observations regarding ‘SA/GPA/WILL transactions’ are not intended to apply to such bonafide/genuine transactions. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Transfer of property
Scope of agreement of sale -- Sale deed -- Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of sections 54 and 55 of TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted u/s 53A of TP Act) -- According to TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance -- Section 54 of TP Act enacts that sale of immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Scope of agreement of sale -- Sale deed -- Transfer of immoveable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed) -- In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immoveable property can be transferred. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Scope of Power of Attorney -- A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property -- Power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him -- It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law -- Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee -- An attorney holder may however execute a deed of conveyance in exercise of the power granted under the power of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Scope of Will -- A will is the testament of the testator -- It is a posthumous disposition of the estate of the testator directing distribution of his estate upon his death -- It is not a transfer inter vivos -- Two essential characteristics of a will are that it is intended to come into effect only after the death of the testator and is revocable at any time during the life time of the testator -- It is said that so long as the testator is alive, a will is not be worth the paper on which it is written, as the testator can at any time revoke it -- If the testator, who is not married, marries after making the will, by operation of law, the will stands revoked -- Registration of a will does not make it any more effective. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)
Section 53A, 54, 55 – Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 (7 of 1882), Section 1A,2 -- Transfer of property – Scope of Power of Attorney -- A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property -- Power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him -- It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law -- Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee -- An attorney holder may however execute a deed of conveyance in exercise of the power granted under the power of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Section 53A, 54, 55 – Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 (7 of 1882), Section 1A,2 -- Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 69,70 -- Transfer by Sale agreement/General Power of Attorney/Will – Law summarized -- SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property – Held, Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance -- Transactions of the nature of ‘GPA sales’ or ‘SA/GPA/WILL transfers’ do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property -- Courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property – They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act -- Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records -- What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property -- A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease -- It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales -- SA/GPA/WILL transactions are not ‘transfers’ or ‘sales’ and that such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances -- They can continue to be treated as existing agreement of sale -- Nothing prevents affected parties from getting registered Deeds of Conveyance to complete their title -- The said ‘SA/GPA/WILL transactions’ may also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under section 53A of TP Act -- If they are entered before this day, they may be relied upon to apply for regularization of allotments/leases by Development Authorities -- Documents relating to ‘SA/GPA/WILL transactions’ has been accepted acted upon by DDA or other developmental authorities or by the Municipal or revenue authorities to effect mutation, they need not be disturbed, merely on account of this decision – However observations are not intended to in any way affect the validity of sale agreements and powers of attorney executed in genuine transactions -- For example, A person may give a power of attorney to his spouse, son, daughter, brother, sister or a relative to manage his affairs or to execute a deed of conveyance -- A person may enter into a development agreement with a land developer or builder for developing the land either by forming plots or by constructing apartment buildings and in that behalf execute an agreement of sale and grant a Power of Attorney empowering the developer to execute agreements of sale or conveyances in regard to individual plots of land or undivided shares in the land relating to apartments in favour of prospective purchasers -- In several States, the execution of such development agreements and powers of attorney are already regulated by law and subjected to specific stamp duty -- Observations regarding ‘SA/GPA/WILL transactions’ are not intended to apply to such bonafide/genuine transactions. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Section 53A, 54, 55 – Transfer of property – Scope of agreement of sale -- Sale deed -- Transfer of immoveable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed) -- In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immoveable property can be transferred. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Section 53A, 54, 55 – Transfer of property – Scope of agreement of sale -- Sale deed -- Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of sections 54 and 55 of TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted u/s 53A of TP Act) -- According to TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance -- Section 54 of TP Act enacts that sale of immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
No comments:
Post a Comment