IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.
Sawwad Ali - Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Kumar and Others - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 242 of 2005
Decided On : 29-05-2019
POSSESSION - TENANCY DISPUTE - CPC - [Chapter 9, Salmond On Jurisprudence (12th Edition), AIR 1924 Privy Council 144, AIR 1968 SC 620, (1974) 1 SCC 48, (1989) 4 SCC 131, (1995) 3 SCC 426, AIR 1968 SC 702, (2003) 7 SCC 350, 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 29] - The court discussed the concept of possession, lawful possession, and protection of possession against ownership. It emphasized that possession, even without title, is entitled to protection until dispossessed by due process of law. The judgment relied on various legal principles to establish the right of a possessor to protect their possession against the owner and highlighted the importance of due process of law in resolving possession disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction, claiming to be a tenant in a disputed shop and seeking protection from forcible dispossession by the respondents. The respondents contested the suit, denying the appellant's tenancy and asserting that the appellant's possession was permissive and had expired.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and restraining the respondents from forcibly dispossessing the appellant from the disputed shop, emphasizing the need for due process of law in resolving the possession dispute.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the status of the appellant's possession - whether as a tenant or a licensee, and the entitlement to protection from forcible dispossession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal principles governing possession, lawful possession, and protection of possession against ownership, highlighting the right of a possessor to protect their possession until dispossessed by due process of law.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the lower courts were set aside. The respondents were restrained from forcibly dispossessing the appellant from the disputed shop, emphasizing the need for due process of law in resolving possession disputes.
JUDGMENT :
Ved Prakash Vaish, J.
Heard Sri Mohd. Saeed-II, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The appellant, by filing present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.C."), assails the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2005 passed by learned District Judge, Unnao, in Civil Appeal No.37 of 2001, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, bearing Regular Suit No.372 of 1999 titled as Sawwad Ali v. Rajesh Kumar and others, restraining the respondents-defendants from forcibly dispossessing him except in due process of law. The case of the appellant-plaintiff was that he is a tenant in a shop situated in Mohalla Naseemganj, Kasba Bangarmau, Tehsil Safipur, District Unnao, on a monthly rent of Rs.150/- since 1992, the appellant is carrying on business of repairing of motorcycles in the said shop; the disputed shop was constructed in the year 1981-1982, the appellant-plaintiff had taken the disputed shop on rent from the father of respondents-defendants and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was deposited as a security on the condition that the amount will be paid to the appellant-plaintiff at the time of vacating the disputed shop. It was also averred that the appellant-plaintiff paid rent to the father of the respondents-defendants but no rent receipt was issued to him, after the death of father of the respondents-defendants, rent was paid to the respondents-defendants and the rent has been paid till June 1999. It was also averred that when the appellant-plaintiff demanded the rent receipt, father of the respondents-defendants stated that there is some dispute regarding the ownership of disputed shop, and therefore, no rent receipt was issued. It was further averred that in the Ist week of July, 1999 when the appellant-plaintiff paid the rent, the respondents-defendants asked the appellant-plaintiff to vacate the disputed shop as the respondents wanted to reconstruct the disputed shop as well as other shops. When the appellant-plaintiff demanded back security amount of Rs.5,000/- which was given by him, the respondents became annoyed, and therefore, threatened to take forcibly possession of the disputed shop. Hence, the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction.
4. The respondents-defendants contested the suit by filing the written statement. The respondents-defendants, inter alia, stated that the appellant-plaintiff was never tenant in the disputed shop nor he took the disputed shop on rent from the father of the respondents-defendants in the year 1992 on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. It was stated by the defendants that prior to the year 1992 eye site of the father of the respondents-defendants was very weak, he was seriously ailing. The respondents-defendants denied that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid by the appellant-plaintiff to the father of the respondents-defendants as a security amount. The respondents-defendants also denied that the appellant-plaintiff made payment of rent till June, 1999. The respondents-defendants stated that the appellant-plaintiff was carrying on work of repairing of motorcycles and scooters in the Gumti which was kept on the side of the road; the appellant requested to use the disputed Kothari for parking motorcycles and scooters during night. The respondents acceded to the request of the appellant-plaintiff and permitted him to keep his motorcycles and scooters during night in the disputed kothari on the condition that when they would construct the house, he will have to remove his motorcycles and scooters; the appellant-plaintiff agreed to the same. When the respondents requested the appellant to remove his motorcycles and scooters from the disputed kothari, the appellant started demanding huge amount.
5. The appellant-pl
Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy and others
Lallu Yeshwant Singh (dead) by his legal representative v. Rao Jagdish Sinh and others
Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his Lrs v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao
Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander and others
M.C. Chockalingam and others v. V. Manickavasagam and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.