1. Tenancy dispute involving alleged illegal dispossession and use of criminal proceedings to obtain possession, with concurrent civil suits pending. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1331
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Shah, J
DALICHAND
Vs.
C. SANTHOSH AGARWAL
Decided on November 16, 1999
Important Points
In a tenancy dispute, the court can appoint a court receiver to take possession of the premises until the dispute is resolved.
Subject
Criminal Law - SECTION 482 - TENANCY DISPUTE - POSSESSION OF PREMISES - COURT RECEIVER - MESNE PROFIT
Act Referred
Headnote
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - TENANCY DISPUTE - POSSESSION OF PREMISES - COURT RECEIVER - MESNE PROFIT:
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were tenants of a premises. The landlord sold the premises to respondents 3 and 4, who claimed rent from the appellants. The appellants sent rent by demand draft and pay order, but respondents 3 and 4 did not accept it. The appellants left the premises locked and when they returned, they found that the premises were opened and stock worth Rs 1,73,823.00 was missing. The appellants filed a suit for injunction against respondents 3 and 4. Respondent 1 filed a petition in the High Court seeking directions to the police to investigate the case. The High Court directed the police to break open and handover the premises to respondent 1. The appellants filed an application for impleadment as party respondents and to vacate the interim order. The High Court directed the police to take possession of the premises from respondent 1 and seal the same.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the only authority which could decide about the lawful possession by granting the required relief is the Civil court, where the suits of both the parties are pending and the court has yet to pass the final order on the same.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellants to get possession by getting interim order from the Civil court, when the possession of the premises in question has been handed over to respondent no. 1 by the interim order of the High court and when the premises is covered by the provision of Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court was not justified in directing the appellants to get possession by getting interim order from the Civil court, when the possession of the premises in question has been handed over to respondent no. 1 by the interim order of the High court and when the premises is covered by the provision of Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The appellants can be handed over possession of the premises as a court receiver. This would finally protect the rights of the parties.
Final Decision: The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argue illegal dispossession and abuse of criminal process to bypass rent control laws, seeking restoration of possession. (Para 7 )
3. The court found the appellants were undisputedly tenants and their rights should be protected pending the final decision of the civil court. (Para 8 )
4. An undisputed tenant may be granted possession as a court receiver to protect their rights pending final adjudication by a competent civil court. (Para 8 )
5. Appellants granted possession as court receiver subject to payment of mesne profits if ultimately found ineligible; otherwise, High Court order remains. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Can a High Court use Section 482 CrPC to decide lawful possession in a tenancy dispute?
The court observed that the authority to decide lawful possession and grant the required relief lies with the Civil Court, particularly when civil suits are already pending between the parties. (Para 6 )
7. How can a tenant's possession be protected when a civil dispute over possession is pending?
Where the party is undisputedly a tenant, the court may hand over possession to them as a court receiver to protect the rights of all parties until a competent court decides the entitlement. (Para 8 )
8. What are the conditions for granting possession as a court receiver in a tenancy dispute?
The party may hold possession as a court receiver on the condition that if they are ultimately found not entitled to possession, they must hand it over and pay mesne profits. (Para 8 )
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 24/12/1993 of the High court of Judicature at Madras passed in Criminal O. P. No. 8926 of 1997. From the lengthy-judgment written by the High court it appears that Respondent no. 1 has taken undue advantage of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code however, for the dismissal of this appeal various proceedings, orders and arguments referred to by the High Court are not required to be dealt with now as the matter has reached only at an early interim stage of the litigation.
( 3 ) IT is the say of the appellants that on 28/6/1978, appellant No. 1 entered into an agreement with one Smt. Sakunthala in respect of a portion of the space at Door No. 7, Hanumantha Rayan Koli Street, Chennai for tenancy for residential purpose. In October 1987, the tenancy was converted for both residential and non-residential purpose. On 17/10/1996, the appellants received a letter from the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 claiming that they had purchased the premises in question by a registered sale deed dated 16/10/1996 and informing that the monthly rent be remitted to them. Admittedly, the appellants confirmed the same with the land lady. It is the case of the appellants that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not accept the rent from them; with the result the appellant sent the rent by way of demand draft on 30/12/1996 for the months of October and november, 1996 and again by way of pay order on 17/3/1997 for the months of december 1996, January and February 1997 with advocates notice. It is the further case of the appellants that on 5/7/1997, they left the premises locked for going out from chennai and next day when they returned, they found that the premises were opened and stock worth Rs 1,73,823. 00 was missing. On 9/7/1997, a cheque for a sum of Rs. 4,400. 00 being rent for March to June 1997 was sent along with Advocates notice and a complaint was lodged with the police, but the police refused to accept the same on the premise that it was a civil dispute. On 10/7/1997, the appellants filed a suit for injunction bearing o. S. No. 4705 of 1997 before the City Civil court, Madras against respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The appellants further came to know that the landlord has set up one Santosh Agarwal, respondent no. 1 to take possession of the premises in question. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 filed Crl. O. P. 8926/97 in the High court seeking directions to respondent no. 2 for investigation of the said case by Crime branch, CID, Chennai. Respondent no. 2 appeared before the High court on 11/7/1997 and the High court directed respondent no. 2 to break open and handover the premises to respondent no. 1 Accordingly, the police handed over the premises in question to respondent no. 1. On 22/10/1997, the appellants came to know about the proceedings of Crl. O. P. No. 8926/97 and filed an application for impleadment as party respondents and also to vacate the interim order. On this application, the High court directed the police to take possession of the premises in question from respondent no. 1 and seal the same.
( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the High court heard both the parties and vide its impugned order observed (in para no. 118 that:- ". . this court (the High court) is not able to accept the contention of either side. It may be that Dalichand would have vacated the premises and put sub-tenant santhosh Agarwal in the said premises without the consent of the landlords and that subsequently, after some period santhosh Agarwal would have shifted his loyalty to the landlords and entered into rental agreement with them or it may be that the landlords would have set up santhosh Agarwal as a tenant in the premises, in order to show that heobtained possession from him without going to the court to evict the original tenant by following due process of law. However, on the materials available on record, this court is not able to decide as to whose content
