1. Eviction suit — Possession and mesne profits — Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — Bona fide need. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 948
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Vineet Saran, JJ.
Padam S/o Roshanlal Ghai & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Dr. Balasaheb S/o Wasudeorao Motghare - Respondent
Special Leave Petition [C] No.3754 of 2021
Padam S/O Roshanlal Ghai & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Dr. Balasaheb S/O Wasudeorao Motghare - Respondent
With Special Leave Petition [C] No.3810 of 2021
Decided On : 04-03-2021
Important Points
The Court held that res judicata does not apply to eviction suits based on bona fide need. It further ruled that continuing to occupy premises despite multiple court orders for eviction constitutes an abuse of the process of law, justifying the imposition of costs.
Subject
Eviction and Possession - Rent Control Act
Act Referred
Headnote
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Special Leave Petitions - Suit for eviction and possession – Suit for mesne profit - Petitioners have been tenant in shop initially let out by father of respondent in year 1971 - In year 2009, respondent filed a suit for eviction and possession as well as mesne profit under provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Trial Court decreed suit for eviction after holding that there was bona fide need of plaintiff-respondent of suit property - Thereafter, an appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed by District Judge with direction to petitioners to handover possession within 30 days – Held, Special Leave Petitions against Order of Writ Court was dismissed, whereby they were directed to vacate premises - Review Petition was also filed on flimsy ground that some compromise has been entered into in 1979 between father of petitioners on one side and respondent. same has been dismissed by High Court after noticing that suit for eviction was filed by plaintiff respondent in year 2009, which was 30 years after alleged compromise is said to have been entered into in 1979 - It has also been rightly held that aspect of res judicata will not apply when eviction is sought on ground of bona fide need - Court see no ground to interfere with said Order passed by High Court - Special Leave Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Muzammil Hussain, Adv., Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR, Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR, Ms. Qurratulain, Adv., Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv., Mr. Aditya S. Jhadav, Adv., Mr. Nicholas Choudhury, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Muzammil Hussain, Adv., Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR, Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR, Ms. Qurratulain, Adv., Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv., Mr. Aditya S. Jhadav, Adv., Mr. Nicholas Choudhury, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Prior compromise agreement — Bar to eviction — Challenge to review petition dismissal. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. Abuse of process of law — Failure to vacate despite court orders — Stale compromise claim. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 )
4. Res judicata — Inapplicability to eviction based on bona fide need. (Para 5 )
5. Special Leave Petitions dismissed — Costs imposed — Direction to vacate — Contempt warning. (Para 6 , 8 )
6. Does the principle of res judicata apply to eviction suits based on bona fide need?
No, the court held that the aspect of res judicata will not apply when eviction is sought on the ground of bona fide need. (Para 5 )
7. What constitutes an abuse of the process of law in the context of eviction orders?
Remaining in possession of a property after multiple courts, including the Supreme Court, have ordered vacation and granted extensions constitutes an abuse of the process of law. (Para 4 , 7 )
8. Can a long delay between a claimed compromise and an eviction suit affect the claim's validity?
Yes, a claim based on a compromise agreement may be dismissed as flimsy if the eviction suit is filed many years after the alleged agreement was entered into. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
The petitioners have been tenant in the shop initially let out by the father of the respondent in the year 1971. In the year 2009, the respondent filed a suit for eviction and possession as well as mesne profit under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The Trial Court decreed the suit for eviction on 05.03.2015 after holding that there was bona fide need of the plaintiff-respondent of the suit property. Thereafter, an appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the District Judge on 28.09.2016 with the direction to the petitioners to handover possession within 30 days.
2. The petitioners, thereafter, filed a Writ Petition which was also dismissed by the High Court on 12.07.2019, and time was granted till 31.10.2019 to vacate the said premises.
3. The petitioners, then, filed Special Leave Petitions before this Court, which were also dismissed on 03.10.2019 with the following order:
“The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. However, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we allow the petitioners further period till 31st March, 2020 to vacate the premises subject to filing of usual undertaking within four weeks from today.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.”
Even then the petitioners did not vacate the said premises and chose to file a Review Petition before the High court, which was also dismissed on 12.02.2021. Challenging the said Order, these Special Leave Petitions have been filed.
4. In the aforesaid facts of this case, it is absolutely clear that the petitioners, as tenant, are wanting to cling on to the property in question, even after having lost from all the Courts, including this Court.
5. The Special Leave Petitions against the Order of the Writ Court was dismissed on 03.10.2019, whereby they were directed to vacate the premises by 31.03.2020. The Review Petition was also filed on flimsy ground that some compromise has been entered into in 1979 between the father of the petitioners on one side and the respondent. The same has been dismissed by the High Court after noticing that the suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff respondent in the year 2009, which was 30 years after the alleged compromise is said to have been entered into in 1979. It has also been rightly held that the aspect of res judicata will not apply when eviction is sought on the ground of bona fide need. We see no ground to interfere with the said Order passed by the High Court.
6. Accordingly, these Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
7. From the facts as narrated above, it is clear that the petitioners are trying to cling on to the property, even though the petitioners have lost from all Courts. In the earlier Special Leave Petitions, petitioners were directed to vacate the premises by 31.03.2020, which they have not vacated. Thus, we are of the opinion that the petitioners have abused the process of law in managing to remain in possession of the property in question, especially after the direction of this Court’s Order dated 03.10.2019 passed while dismissing earlier Special Leave Petitions of the petitioners.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, while dismissing these Special Leave Petitions, we impose cost of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand), which shall be paid to the plaintiff-respondent and also direct that petitioners shall vacate the premises in question within 1 month from today, failing which, the respondent shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings for contempt against the petitioners.
