AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.S. Mishra, C.J.—Heard.
Appellants 2 and 3 herein are allegedly the purchasers of a building in which admittedly a High School has existed for about forty years. Vendors'' title is stated to be in one Syed Raziuddin Hasan who allegedly gifted to his wife Rabia Begum, who in turn leased the premises to the school in the year 1956. She, later in the year 1960, sold the property to the alleged vendors of the appellants herein. There was some litigation for eviction at the instance of the first set of purchasers (vendors of the appellants herein) which ended in a compromise and the school continued to function in the premises as in the past until the present controversy on account of the alleged purchase by the appellants, herein in February and March, 1995. According to the appellants, the Correspondent of the School delivered possession on 19-5-1995 which gave rise to a proceeding u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and possession was once again restored to the school. The Deputy Educational Officer, it appears, evinced some interest of a sort, which apparently helped the appellants, by issuing a letter to the school on 3-7-1995 saying that since a portion of the building was unsafe for students, it should not be run in that part of the premises. In the meanwhile, the proceeding u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure found some reference in Criminal Petition No. 2874 of 1995 in which directions were issued on 31-8-1995. Notwithstanding, however, the above, the school continued to function in the premises until it transpired that the District Educational Officer on 31-10-1995 has granted permission to the appellants herein to establish and run, that is, to open a new school in the premises. Appellants have since proceeded to issue advertisements, etc., and allegedly admitted sixty students in different classes from 6-6-1996 onwards. Parents of the students of the original school have moved mis Court and pointedly made out the case that the school has existed in the premises for the last forty years and the purchasers, who have intended to start a new school, have not evicted the school in accordance with law. The story that Correspondent allegedly delivered possession to them, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that his possession was that of a manager of the property and not of the owner who could on his own deliver possession and vacate the premises. If at all there has been any such transaction, that only was some sort of a paper transaction.
Learned single Judge has taken notice of the far reaching consequences of a transferee of a property not taking recourse to the legal provisions under the Transfer of Property Act and discharging his liabilities as the lessor by stepping into the shoes of his vendor, and ordered - (1) for continuance of the original school as it has continued in the said premises for about forty years, (2) for acquisition of the property for the school as contemplated u/s 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, and (3) to cancel the permission granted to the appellants herein for running the School in the premises.
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the impugned judgment and order are not sustainable as there is no legal basis for any of the directions issued by the learned single Judge and in any case, the order is iniquitous which has denied to the owner of the property the right to use the property as he likes. Learned counsel, in the course of his arguments, has also adverted to the dilapidated condition of the building and the financial crisis the management has been facing that it could not even properly repair the building, to suggest that to permit the school to continue in the building (not the school which the appellants proposed to establish) will endanger the life of the students.
Transfer of Property Act has clearly stipulated the rights and liabilities of the lessors and lessees of an immovable property and that of the right of lessor''s transferee. It is conceded that nothing pursuant to the provisions therein has been done by either party except a statement that Correspondent of the school has delivered possession to the purchasers i.e., the appellants. This fact of delivery of possession is obviously only a paper transaction, as the school was neither ever shifted to any other premises nor was closed by a declaration by the competent authorities in this behalf. The school thus has continued in the premises and has been in continuous possession thereof. Until evicted in accordance with law, the tenant i.e., the school has to continue. Learned Counsel for the appellants has made a forceful argument that the tenancy was with the Correspondent. We have perused the lease deed, which was executed pursuant to the compromise, only for the purpose of knowing who the lessor was and who the lessee is. We have no manner of doubt that the Correspondent of the school only represented the institution and the lessee for all purposes has always been the school. Whether established by a private body of managers or by a statutory authority of the Government, educational institution has a definite public duty to perform-the duty to impart education. It is not in dispute that the school has been doing so for decades and has fallen foul of the designs of the purchasers i.e., the appellants, of the building that attempt is being made either to close it or to force it to shift to some other premises. A duty is created by the statute u/s 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act upon the Government of the State and it is also the sovereign duty of the State to ensure that education is imparted to all concerned and is not interfered with by private designs or contrivances. Learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has committed no error of law in holding the interest of the institution over the interest of the purchasers of the building that too when it has existed for about four decades in the premises concerned and rightly directed that the school should be continued in the same premises and competent authorities must act to perform their duty as provided by the law as above. It is obvious that any permission to the appellants to establish and run any school In the premises cannot be made possible, unless the school (the interest of which is sought to be protected by the parents of the students) is closed or shifted from the said premises. If the appellants have any desire and they are fit persons to establish a school, they can do so, but surely not by taking away the right of the institution which has existed in the building concerned for such a long time. The third direction by the learned single Judge in this behalf has thus to be understood to confine to any permission to run a new school in the premises in which the school is presently run.
The present controversy appears to have been occasioned because many, who masquerade as champions of the cause of education, are treating establishment and administration of schools as business ventures. Appellants may or may not be amongst such adventurists, but when they attempt to force a school, which is existing in the premises from before, to close down or to be shifted elsewhere, they appear to have no better design than that of a business competitor. Before we close the judgment, we observe that people particularly students do not forget their Alma Matter and attach value to the memory of the institution in which they studied. Forty years old school shall surely create many such memories in the students of the schools and they will not imagine such a school dying of neglect or designs of some persons who do not appear to have similar interest as they may have. The Government shall do more service to the cause of education by ensuring the protection of the school and the appellants shall only be discharging the obligations of the lessor by ensuring that the building is properly maintained and if there are repairs needed, immediately provided.
We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.