SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(SC) 75

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.Natarajan : Sabyasachi Mukharjee
Vidhi Shanker
Versus
Heera Lal
Case No. : 4028 of 1982
Date of Decision : 1/21/87

Headnote:

Vacant peaceful possession - Trial court – Circumstances evidence – Court find that leave to appeal was granted in this matter from the order of the High court. Counsel for the appellant sought for Time to vacate the shop in question and time was allowed to the appellant on the ground that he would hand vacant possession of the shop either to the plaintiff-respondent or to the trial court and would also pay all the arrears of the rent, if any, due against him. Upon this undertaking, the High court records, time was given to the appellant for delivering vacant peaceful possession – Held, Taking advantage of this the appellant has obtained special leave. We are of the opinion that whatever be the merits of the case upon which we do not propose to enter, in exercise of our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution, it would not be proper, after such an undertaking was given in the High court and time obtained on the basis of such undertaking, to interfere with the findings made by the High court. In that view of the matter this appeal must be dismissed. However, in view of the fact that the appellant is carrying on business in the premises in question the respondent has no objection if the appellant is allowed time up to 31/05/1987 to vacate and hand over the possession upon furnishing usual undertaking within four weeks from today. The time is given to the appellant as the counsel for the respondent agrees to give this time. In the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs – Appeal dismissed

(1) WE find that leave to appeal was granted in this matter from the order of the High court. Counsel for the appellant sought for time to vacate the shop in question and time was allowed to the appellant on the ground that he would hand ovei vacant possession of the shop either to the plaintiff-respondent or to the trial court and would also pay all the arrears of the rent, if any, due against him. Upon this undertaking, the High court records, time was given to the appellant for delivering vacant peaceful possession. Taking advantage of this the appellant has obtained special leave. We are of the opinion that whatever be the merits of the case upon which we do not propose to enter, in exercise of our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution, it would not be proper, after such an undertaking was given in the High court and time obtained on the basis of such undertaking, to interfere with the findings made by the High court. In that view of the matter this appeal must be dismissed. However, in view of the fact that the appellant is carrying on business in the premises in question the respondent has no objection if the appellant is allowed time up to 31/05/1987 to vacate and hand over the possession upon furnishing usual undertaking within four weeks from today. The time is given to the appellant as the counsel for the respondent agrees to give this time. In the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Appeal is dismissed upon the aforesaid terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top