Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision, in the absence of
possession of the suit property being taken by the Corporation,
the contention of learned counsel for the tenant cannot be
accepted that the landlord was divested of his right, title or
interest in the suit property.
Supreme Court: The pertinent question before the Court in the present case was whether a suit for eviction of tenants after the passage of an award in respect of the tenanted property under the provisions of land Acquisition Act, 1984 is maintainable by a landlord, to which the bench comprising of Ranjana Prakash Desai and Madan B. Lokur, JJ, answered in the affirmative, and pointed out that Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 enables the acquiring authority to take possession of acquired land and when that is taken, it would be free from all encumbrances. Moreover, the Court observed that the recurrence of the situations where in the process of first passing an interim order that grants time to the tenants for vacating the property, and then expecting an undertaking from the tenants, allows them to disobey the Court which undermined the authority of the Court should be avoided.. [Sheela Jawarlal Nagori v. Kantilal Nathmal Baldota, SLP (C) No.36518 of 2013, decided on March 25, 2014]
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
1. The question before us is whether a landlord can maintain a
suit for eviction of his tenant even after an award has been
passed in respect of the tenanted property under the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In our opinion, the answer must
be in the affirmative.
2. The petitioners in both special leave petitions are the
tenants of the respondent landlord. For convenience we have
taken the facts from SLP (C) No. 37456 of 2013, but note that the
issue that arises in both the cases is the same and the hearing
proceeded on this basis.
3. The landlord had instituted Civil Suit No. 433 of 2000 in the
Court of the 5th Additional Small Cause Judge and Jt. Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Pune for vacant possession of the ‘suit property’
being CTS Old 99-B Raviwar Peth, New 767 Budhwar Peth, Pune
from the tenant. The contention of the landlord was that the suit
property was open space let out to the tenants and that it was not
protected by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short
the Act). The Trial Court accepted the contention of the landlord
and passed a decree on 28th June, 2005 directing the tenant to
hand over vacant possession of the suit property.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant preferred Civil Appeal No. 515
of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Pune. The appeal was
allowed by a judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2006 and
the decree passed by the Trial Court set aside. It was held that
the suit property was an open plot and that the provisions of the
Act were not applicable, but it was held that the tenancy was
required to be terminated in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882.
5. The judgment and order passed by the appellate Court has
attained finality since neither the tenant nor the landlord has
challenged it.
6. Following up on the order passed by the Additional District
Judge, the landlord issued a notice to the tenant on 13th February,
2006 terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882. The tenant did not respond to the notice
and that led the landlord to file Civil Suit No. 207 of 2006 in the
Court of the Small Causes Judge, Pune for eviction of the tenant.
The suit was decreed on 3rd March, 2009 and the tenant was
directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the
landlord.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant preferred Civil Appeal No. 225
of 2009 before the District Judge but that was dismissed by
judgment and order dated 19th January, 2012. The tenant was
given two months time to vacate the suit property.
8. Against the decision passed by the appellate Court the
tenant preferred Writ Petition No. 2089 of 2012 which was
dismissed by the Bombay High Court by its judgment and order
dated 24th October, 2013 (impugned).
9. In all the proceedings, the finding of fact has been that the
suit property let out to the tenant was open land. We are not
inclined to disturb this finding of fact arrived at by several Courts
and indeed this finding was not seriously challenged by learned
counsel for the tenant.
10. The question raised by the tenant is that the suit property
was acquired by the Pune Municipal Corporation for the purpose
of a primary school and the Special Land Acquisition Officer had
passed an award in respect thereof on 3rd August, 1979.
Accordingly, the landlord was divested of his right, title and
interest in the suit property after the land acquisition proceedings
and therefore a suit for eviction of the tenant was not
maintainable.
11. The High Court noted that there was no material on record to
suggest that the Pune Municipal Corporation had taken
possession of the suit property from the landlord. On the
contrary, the Corporation had sanctioned a development plan
submitted by the landlord in respect of the suit property through
a notification issued on 5th January, 1987. It is clear, therefore,
that the Corporation had not taken possession nor had any
intention of taking possession of the suit property.
12. That apart, Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
enables the acquiring authority to take possession of acquired
land and when that is taken, it would be free from all
encumbrances. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads
as follows:
16. Power to take possession - When the
Collector has made an award under Section 11, he
may take possession of the land, which shall
thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free
from all encumbrances.
Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision, in the absence of
possession of the suit property being taken by the Corporation,
the contention of learned counsel for the tenant cannot be
accepted that the landlord was divested of his right, title or
interest in the suit property.
13. We may also note that it was brought out during the course
of hearing that the tenant continues to pay rent to the landlord
even though according to the tenant the landlord had no concern
with the suit property after the award was passed on 3rd August,
1979 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The stand of the
tenant seems to be self-defeating for on the one hand it is
submitted that the landlord had no right, title or interest in the
suit property but on the other hand the tenant continues paying
rent to him.
14. An issue that arises out of these cases, and which we would
like to flag, relates to the purpose and effectiveness of an order
passed by the High Court granting time to the tenants to vacate
suit premises. We are mentioning this because in these cases, the
tenants had the benefit of an interim order passed by the High
Court staying the execution of the decree against them as well as
a stay of operation of the judgments of the Trial Court and the
appellate Court. On the dismissal of the proceedings by the High
Court, learned counsel for the tenants applied for continuation of
the interim order for a period of 12 weeks. He stated that the
tenants would file an undertaking along with all others using the
suit property on or before 19th November, 2013 incorporating
therein the following terms: (i) that they are in possession of the
suit premises and nobody else is in possession; (ii) that they have
neither created third party interests nor parted with possession;
(iii) that they will hereafter neither create third party interests nor
part with possession of the suit premises, (iv) that they will clear
all arrears of rent, if any, within four weeks subject to adjustment,
(v) they will not apply for extension of time, and (vi) that in case
they are unable to obtain suitable orders from this Court within 12
weeks, they will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the
suit premises to the landlord.
15. The tenants failed to file any such undertaking in the High
Court on or before 19th November, 2013. This was brought to our
notice by the landlord on 4th February, 2014 and we directed the
tenants to file the necessary undertaking as ordered by the High
Court within a week. We were subsequently given to understand
that the undertaking was filed.
16. These cases indicate that even though the High Court trusts
a litigant before it to comply with its orders, sometimes a litigant
does not take the High Court seriously. This is unfortunate and
undermines the authority of the Court. We feel the recurrence of
a situation as has happened in these cases needs to be avoided.
Therefore, the High Court would be well advised to consider
having the tenant first file an undertaking and placed on record
before granting any interim order after dismissal of the tenant’s
petition. Otherwise this may place the High Court in a difficult
position where its order is flagrantly disobeyed, as has happened
in these cases.
17. We find no merit in these petitions and they are accordingly
dismissed. The interim applications are also dismissed.
……………………………………J
(Ranjana Prakash Desai)
……………………………………J
(Madan B. Lokur)
New Delhi;
March 25, 2014
Print Page
possession of the suit property being taken by the Corporation,
the contention of learned counsel for the tenant cannot be
accepted that the landlord was divested of his right, title or
interest in the suit property.
Supreme Court: The pertinent question before the Court in the present case was whether a suit for eviction of tenants after the passage of an award in respect of the tenanted property under the provisions of land Acquisition Act, 1984 is maintainable by a landlord, to which the bench comprising of Ranjana Prakash Desai and Madan B. Lokur, JJ, answered in the affirmative, and pointed out that Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 enables the acquiring authority to take possession of acquired land and when that is taken, it would be free from all encumbrances. Moreover, the Court observed that the recurrence of the situations where in the process of first passing an interim order that grants time to the tenants for vacating the property, and then expecting an undertaking from the tenants, allows them to disobey the Court which undermined the authority of the Court should be avoided.. [Sheela Jawarlal Nagori v. Kantilal Nathmal Baldota, SLP (C) No.36518 of 2013, decided on March 25, 2014]
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
1. The question before us is whether a landlord can maintain a
suit for eviction of his tenant even after an award has been
passed in respect of the tenanted property under the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In our opinion, the answer must
be in the affirmative.
2. The petitioners in both special leave petitions are the
tenants of the respondent landlord. For convenience we have
taken the facts from SLP (C) No. 37456 of 2013, but note that the
issue that arises in both the cases is the same and the hearing
proceeded on this basis.
3. The landlord had instituted Civil Suit No. 433 of 2000 in the
Court of the 5th Additional Small Cause Judge and Jt. Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Pune for vacant possession of the ‘suit property’
being CTS Old 99-B Raviwar Peth, New 767 Budhwar Peth, Pune
from the tenant. The contention of the landlord was that the suit
property was open space let out to the tenants and that it was not
protected by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short
the Act). The Trial Court accepted the contention of the landlord
and passed a decree on 28th June, 2005 directing the tenant to
hand over vacant possession of the suit property.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant preferred Civil Appeal No. 515
of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Pune. The appeal was
allowed by a judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2006 and
the decree passed by the Trial Court set aside. It was held that
the suit property was an open plot and that the provisions of the
Act were not applicable, but it was held that the tenancy was
required to be terminated in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882.
5. The judgment and order passed by the appellate Court has
attained finality since neither the tenant nor the landlord has
challenged it.
6. Following up on the order passed by the Additional District
Judge, the landlord issued a notice to the tenant on 13th February,
2006 terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882. The tenant did not respond to the notice
and that led the landlord to file Civil Suit No. 207 of 2006 in the
Court of the Small Causes Judge, Pune for eviction of the tenant.
The suit was decreed on 3rd March, 2009 and the tenant was
directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the
landlord.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant preferred Civil Appeal No. 225
of 2009 before the District Judge but that was dismissed by
judgment and order dated 19th January, 2012. The tenant was
given two months time to vacate the suit property.
8. Against the decision passed by the appellate Court the
tenant preferred Writ Petition No. 2089 of 2012 which was
dismissed by the Bombay High Court by its judgment and order
dated 24th October, 2013 (impugned).
9. In all the proceedings, the finding of fact has been that the
suit property let out to the tenant was open land. We are not
inclined to disturb this finding of fact arrived at by several Courts
and indeed this finding was not seriously challenged by learned
counsel for the tenant.
10. The question raised by the tenant is that the suit property
was acquired by the Pune Municipal Corporation for the purpose
of a primary school and the Special Land Acquisition Officer had
passed an award in respect thereof on 3rd August, 1979.
Accordingly, the landlord was divested of his right, title and
interest in the suit property after the land acquisition proceedings
and therefore a suit for eviction of the tenant was not
maintainable.
11. The High Court noted that there was no material on record to
suggest that the Pune Municipal Corporation had taken
possession of the suit property from the landlord. On the
contrary, the Corporation had sanctioned a development plan
submitted by the landlord in respect of the suit property through
a notification issued on 5th January, 1987. It is clear, therefore,
that the Corporation had not taken possession nor had any
intention of taking possession of the suit property.
12. That apart, Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
enables the acquiring authority to take possession of acquired
land and when that is taken, it would be free from all
encumbrances. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads
as follows:
16. Power to take possession - When the
Collector has made an award under Section 11, he
may take possession of the land, which shall
thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free
from all encumbrances.
Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision, in the absence of
possession of the suit property being taken by the Corporation,
the contention of learned counsel for the tenant cannot be
accepted that the landlord was divested of his right, title or
interest in the suit property.
13. We may also note that it was brought out during the course
of hearing that the tenant continues to pay rent to the landlord
even though according to the tenant the landlord had no concern
with the suit property after the award was passed on 3rd August,
1979 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The stand of the
tenant seems to be self-defeating for on the one hand it is
submitted that the landlord had no right, title or interest in the
suit property but on the other hand the tenant continues paying
rent to him.
14. An issue that arises out of these cases, and which we would
like to flag, relates to the purpose and effectiveness of an order
passed by the High Court granting time to the tenants to vacate
suit premises. We are mentioning this because in these cases, the
tenants had the benefit of an interim order passed by the High
Court staying the execution of the decree against them as well as
a stay of operation of the judgments of the Trial Court and the
appellate Court. On the dismissal of the proceedings by the High
Court, learned counsel for the tenants applied for continuation of
the interim order for a period of 12 weeks. He stated that the
tenants would file an undertaking along with all others using the
suit property on or before 19th November, 2013 incorporating
therein the following terms: (i) that they are in possession of the
suit premises and nobody else is in possession; (ii) that they have
neither created third party interests nor parted with possession;
(iii) that they will hereafter neither create third party interests nor
part with possession of the suit premises, (iv) that they will clear
all arrears of rent, if any, within four weeks subject to adjustment,
(v) they will not apply for extension of time, and (vi) that in case
they are unable to obtain suitable orders from this Court within 12
weeks, they will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the
suit premises to the landlord.
15. The tenants failed to file any such undertaking in the High
Court on or before 19th November, 2013. This was brought to our
notice by the landlord on 4th February, 2014 and we directed the
tenants to file the necessary undertaking as ordered by the High
Court within a week. We were subsequently given to understand
that the undertaking was filed.
16. These cases indicate that even though the High Court trusts
a litigant before it to comply with its orders, sometimes a litigant
does not take the High Court seriously. This is unfortunate and
undermines the authority of the Court. We feel the recurrence of
a situation as has happened in these cases needs to be avoided.
Therefore, the High Court would be well advised to consider
having the tenant first file an undertaking and placed on record
before granting any interim order after dismissal of the tenant’s
petition. Otherwise this may place the High Court in a difficult
position where its order is flagrantly disobeyed, as has happened
in these cases.
17. We find no merit in these petitions and they are accordingly
dismissed. The interim applications are also dismissed.
……………………………………J
(Ranjana Prakash Desai)
……………………………………J
(Madan B. Lokur)
New Delhi;
March 25, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment