Back
2011 Supreme(Ori) 355
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.K. MISRA, J.
M/s. Bibek Motors - Petitioner
Versus
Pyarimohan & Pramila Trust Represented through its Managing Trustee Subrata Kumar Samantaray - Opp. Party
W.P.(C) No. 12605 of 2010
Decided On : 17.11.2011
For Petitioner: Mr. B.Bhuyan, B.N.Das, S.K.Panda, R. Ray, R.N. Pratihari, A.K. Rout,
N.P. Patra & B.N. Mishra, Advocates.
For Opp. party :Mr. N.P.Parija, A.K. Mohanty & S.K. Rout, Advocates.
The central legal point established is the protection of possession even after the expiry of the lease period and the prohibition of forcible eviction without due process of law.
Headnote:
Trespass - Property Dispute - Specific Relief Act - Section 6, Transfer of Property Act - Section 106, Civil Procedure Code - Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to possession, tenancy, and eviction, emphasizing the distinction between a tenant holding over and a tenant at sufferance. It highlighted the protection of possession even without a valid lease and the prohibition of forcible dispossession without due process of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant in a shop room, faced a dispute with the trust claiming ownership, leading to a lawsuit for injunction and restoration of power supply.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's continued possession, even after the lease period, constituted a tenant holding over, entitling her to protection from forcible eviction.
Issues: The key issues involved the legality of the petitioner's possession after the lease period, the payment of rent, and the demand for eviction by the trust.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the protection of possession, distinguishing between tenant holding over and tenant at sufferance, and highlighted the prohibition of forcible dispossession without due process of law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and restored the order of the lower court, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of the suit.
JUDGMENT
B.K.MISRA, J
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order (Annexure-6) dated 22.5.2010 of the Ad hoc Additional District Judge, (Fast Track-I), Cuttack in F.A.O. No. 30 of 2010 in reversing the decision of the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), 1st Court, Cuttack in I.A. No. 125 of 2010 arising out of C.S. No. 137 of 2010.
2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows:-
The petitioner for carrying out her business in motor parts took shop room no.2 from Pyari Mohan and Pramila Trust in the year, 2001 on monthly rent basis. It is the case of the petitioner that the said trust was created by Pyari Mohan Samantaray and his wife Pramila Sundari Devi in the name of Pyari Mohan and Pramila Trust (in short P.P. Trust) and the beneficiaries of the trust were late Pyari Mohan Samantaray, his wife Pramila Sundari Devi and their five sons Arun Kumar Samantaray, Dillip Kumar Samantaray, Pradyuma Kumar Samantaray, Sujogya Kumar Samantaray, Binod Kumar Samantaray and grand son Anjan Kumar Samantaray. Late Pyari Mohan Samantaray till his death in the year, 2007 was functioning as the Managing Trustee of the said P.P. Trust and was receiving rent from the petitioner as well as other tenants in respect of the other shop rooms. The annual rent was fixed in respect of the shop room no.2 at Rs. 2000/-per month and the petitioner also deposited cash security of Rs.1,00,000/-with the trust. The rent of Rs.2000/-was enhanced to Rs.2400/-in the year, 2005. A deed of agreement was executed in between the petitioner with the trust on 1.10.2004 for taking the demised premises by the petitioner on monthly rent and it remained valid till 30.04.2005. It was further renewed for three years thereafter i.e. till 30.04.2008. Thereafter it is alleged that since Pyari Mohan Samantaray was suffering from various ailments because of his advanced stage, therefore, he instructed the petitioner to pay the rent in respect of the demised premises to another trustee, namely, Binod Kumar Samantaray by cheque in the name of P.P.Trust.
Accordingly, the petitioner was going on paying the rent as well as enhanced house rent from time to time. It is the further case of the petitioner that till December, 2009 there was absolutely no problem with the possession of the shop room by the petitioner but disturbance arose when the present Opposite Party, who by proclaiming him as the Managing Trustee of P.P. Trust demanded rent for the month of December, 2009 and January, 2010 as he was authorized by a majority of members of the trust. It is alleged that in the month of February, 2010 power supply was disconnected to the tenanted premises and when the Opposite Party created disturbances during business hours of the Petitioner Firm and when threats were hurled for forcible eviction of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a suit i.e. Civil Suit No.137 of 2010 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), First Court, Cuttack with a prayer for restraining the opposite parties from evicting her from the suit premises without following due process of law and also for mandatory injunction for restoration of the power supply to the petitioner’s shop.
3. The present opposite party, Pyarimohan & Pramila Trust (for short, P.P. Trust) represented through its Managing Trustee contested the suit in the Court below by filing written statement/counter claim wherein while admitting the fact that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in respect of shop room no.2 by P.P.Trust in the year 2001 inter alia pleaded that the tenancy of the petitioner came to an end with the expiry of the lease period on 30.04.2008. It is the further case of the Opposite Party that the possession of the suit shop room by the petitioner after the expiry of the lease period on 30.04.2008 is illegal and not recognized in the eye of law and the petitioner is a trespasser. It is also the case the Opposite Party that Binod Kumar Samanta
