Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.
MADAN MOHAN SINGH – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VED PRAKASH ARYA – RESPONDENT(S)
Civil Appeal Nos. 814-815 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 11009-11010 of 2019)
Decided on : 05-03-2021
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – Section 7 – Termination of hire-purchase agreement of Booth – Contravention of Allotment Letter – Order of eviction passed by Estate Officer – Booth was allotted to plaintiff-appellant – When Administrator has noted the case of parties and came to conclusion that defendant was a servant of hirer, those findings cannot be said to be against record – Chief Administrator has held that there is no justification to deprive hirer of Booth – In view of order of Chief Administrator, appellant-plaintiff was clearly entitled to possession and user of Booth but when possession was not handed over by defendant to appellant, he had to file suit for mandatory injunction – Categorical finding recorded by trial court is that defendant failed to prove any documents pertaining to tenancy – Tenancy is a relationship which is created between two parties – Even if there is oral agreement of tenancy, Court has to look into circumstances and intention of parties and other material to conclude as to whether there was any tenancy or not – Present is not a case where defendant claimed any rent agreement nor any rent receipt filed by defendant in support of his claim of tenancy – Conduct of parties before and after creation of relationship is relevant for finding out their intention – There is no base for holding that relationship of landlord and tenant is proved – First Appellate Court has rightly come to conclusion that findings of trial court that defendant is a tenant is based on surmises and conjectures – When parties signed a document and entered into a partnership deed, they cannot wish away consequences which flow from signing of deed – Plaintiff having categorically denied tenancy and there being no evidence with regard to tenancy, no error in judgment of First Appellate Court that defendant was not a tenant of premises – Judgment of First Appellate Court restored – Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration shall ensure that appellant is immediately put in possession of premises of Booth – Appellant can take appropriate proceedings to recover damages and mesne profit for use of premises by defendant. (Paras 10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals have been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 06.12.2018 by which Regular Second Appeal No.35 of 1997 filed by the respondent, defendant in suit, has been allowed, and the Regular Second Appeal No.2610 of 2002 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the suits filed by the plaintiff-appellant have been dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Both the trial court and High Court have erred in not taking in consideration Clause 12 and finding of the Chief Administrator in its order dated 04.03.1986. The finding of the Chief Administrator dated 04.03.1986 which was passed after the order of the Estate Officer cannot be wished away by the defendant nor can be ignored while deciding the question as to whether the premises were sublet to the defendant or not.
Result : Appeal allowed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 06.12.2018 by which Regular Second Appeal No.35 of 1997 filed by the respondent, the defendant in suit, has been allowed, and the Regular Second Appeal No.2610 of 2002 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the suits filed by the plaintiff-appellant have been dismissed.
3. Brief facts of the case which are necessary to be noted are:
The appellant due to surrender of a temporary stall at Nehru Market was allotted Booth No.186 in Sector 35-D, Chandigarh vide Allotment Letter dated 20.06.1972 issued by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration. The allotment specifically provided that appellant-plaintiff has no right to transfer his rights directly or indirectly. The appellant was restrained from subletting the premises or any part thereof. The building was leased out for cattle poultry feed and for no other purpose. The appellant entered into a partnership deed dated 18.12.1976 with the respondent, Ved Prakash for carrying out the business of cycle repairing etc. in partnership at Booth No.186, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh. The appellant's case is that by notice dated 04.10.1979, the respondent dissolved the partnership and thereafter he became an employee of the appellant in the Booth.
4. The Estate Officer, Chandigarh passed an order dated 09.09.1980/15.04.1982 terminating the hire-purchase agreement of the Booth on the ground that the premises are being used in contravention of Allotment Letter dated 20.06.1972. The appellant filed an application before the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh questioning the order dated 15.04.1982 praying that order be declared illegal and wrong. The respondent, Ved Prakash filed an application before the Chief Administrator, in the proceedings claiming him to be occupier of the premises, paying that he may also be made party to the proceedings. By order dated 09.02.1984 passed under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the Estate Officer directed eviction from Booth No.186. The appeal was filed by the respondent, Ved Prakash before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. In the aforesaid appeal the appellant also appeared. The appeal was dismissed on 10.06.1985. However, the Appellate Court observed that Booth belonged to the appellant and the respondent, Ved Prakash was in possession as an employee of the appellant.
5. The respondent, Ved Prakash has also filed Appeal No.21 of 1984 challenging the order dated 09.09.1980 of the Estate Offider, Chandigarh issued on 15.04.1982 (cancelling the hire-purchase agreement). The Chief Administrator, Chandigarh Administration decided the aforesaid appeal on 13.03.1986 where the Chief Administrator has also noticed that misuse of the premises has been stopped, hence, the premises be restored to hirer-the appellant and the respondent-Ved Prakash was also held as servant of the hirer by the Chief Administrator. The respondent also filed Civil Writ Petition No.3115 of 1985 challenging the order of eviction under the Public Premises Act which was dismissed as infructuous on 14.03.1986 by the High Court noticing that the order of resumption has been revoked.
6. The appellant being unable to take possession of the premises, he filed Civil Suit No.77 of 1986 impleading the respondent as sole defendant. The appellant's case in the suit was that possession of Booth No.186 was given to the respondent in pursuance of partnership deed dated 18.12.1976. It was pleaded that after restoration of the Booth by Chief Administrator, Chandigarh dated 04.03.1986, the plaintiff-appellant became owner of the property and it was further pleaded that the respondent after dissolution of the partnership has been allowed to use the premises as an employee. By notice dated 17.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
