Back
A.V.VARADARAJAN, S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
Sant Lal Jain – Appellant
Versus
Avtar Singh – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a dispute over possession of a property, with the appellant claiming that the respondent was a licensee who had not vacated the premises after the licence was revoked (!) (!) .
The appellant had leased the property from the original owner for a period of ten years, and later became the sole owner of the leasing entity (!) .
The respondent initially took possession of the shed under a licence for one year and did not vacate after the licence expired, leading to the filing of a suit for mandatory injunction to vacate the premises (!) (!) .
The trial court found that the relationship between the parties was that of licensor and licensee, and dismissed the suit, whereas the appellate court found that the suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable and decreed possession in favor of the appellant (!) (!) .
The respondent later purchased the entire property from the original owner after the suit was filed, which raised issues regarding the effect of the sale on the appellant's claim for possession (!) (!) .
The appellate court held that even after the respondent's purchase of the property, the lease or licence granted to the appellant remained valid, and the respondent was still bound to surrender possession after the licence was revoked (!) (!) .
It was emphasized that a licensee must surrender possession upon licence termination and cannot set up ownership or title during the subsistence of the licence or in a suit for recovery of possession, especially if the licence has been revoked (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that delay in filing the suit does not necessarily disqualify the appellant from obtaining relief, especially to avoid multiplicity of suits and unnecessary legal expenses (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the suit, although couched as one for mandatory injunction, effectively seeks possession of the property, and such a suit is maintainable (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, reaffirmed the appellant's right to possession, and directed the respondent to vacate the premises immediately, failing which the appellant could execute the decree (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
Judgment
VARADARAJAN, J. :- This appeal by special leave is by the plaintiff against. the reversing judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 126 of 1979. The trial court had dismissed the suit, but the learned Additional District Judge. Patiala allowed the plaintiffs appeal and decreed the suit.
2. The plaintiff/appellants case was that he had taken on lease under a lease-deed "dated 26-8-196.3 for a term of 10 years a plot of land measuring 51 X 118 situate near the Army Headquarters, Lower Mall, .Patiala for M/s. Jain Motors from its owner Lt. Col. Sadan Singh. He was only a partner of M/s. Jain Motors in 1963, but later became its sole owner in 1967. The defendant/respondent took from the appellant on licence for one year under a deed dated 10-12-1969 the suit shed for carrying on the work of repair of motors, tractors etc. But since he did not vacate the shed after the expiry of the period he terminated the licence and filed the suit on 15-2-1973 for a mandatory injunction directing him to vacate the premises. The respondent opposed the suit contending that the appellant sublet to him a plot of land in 1966-67 and he had raised a new construction thereon and is
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
