2020 Supreme(SC) 285

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
Nand Ram (D) through LRs. and Others – Appellants
Versus
Jagdish Prasad (D) through LRs. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9918 of 2011
Decided On : 19-03-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
An earlier decision deciding an issue only collaterally or incidentally will not operate as res judicata in a latter proceeding where the matter is directly and substantially in issue.
On de-notification of acquired land status of parties as they existed prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act stands revived.
If the lessor does not accept payment of lease money after the expiry of lease period, the tenant would be tenant at sufferance.
Mere non-payment of rent does not amount to forfeiture of tenancy.
Specific article dealing with a specific subject is to be applied in preference to a general and residuary article.
Contention of adverse possession without admitting title of real owner is not tenable.

Headnote:

(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 11, Explanation IV - An earlier decision deciding an issue only collaterally or incidentally - Will not operate as res judicata in a latter proceeding where the matter is directly and substantially in issue - What operates as res-judicata is the decision and not reasons given by Court in support of the decision - Instantly Reference court decided apportionment of compensation - Cannot operate as res judicata in a suit for possession based on title. (Para 20, 25, 27)

(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48 - De-notification of land acquired - Status of parties as they existed prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act stands revived. (Para 24)

(c) Limitation - Notice for possession after de-notification - Reference to such notice made before first appellate court in application for amending written statement - Court allowing to raise plea of limitation without amending written statement - Notice not produced in instant suit for possession - Reference to such notice cannot be taken as starting point of limitation in instant suit. (Para 28)

(d) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 116 - Lease - Tenant gets status of a tenant holding over on a yearly or monthly basis only if the lessor accepts the payment of lease money after the expiry of lease period - Otherwise the tenant would be tenant at sufferance - Tenant at sufferance may remain in possession until he is ejected - Mere non-payment of rent does not amount to forfeiture of tenancy. (Para 29, 30)

(e) Interpretation of statute - Limitation Act, 1963 - Specific article dealing with a specific subject is to be applied in preference to a general and residuary article. (Para 36)

(f) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 67 - Plaintiff filing suit for possession of leased premises within 12 years of termination of tenancy - Covered by Article 67 - Not time barred. (Para 38, 39)

(g) Adverse possession - Contention of adverse possession without admitting title of real owner is not tenable. (Para 41)

Facts of the case:

The appellants-plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff Nos. 2 to 8, as legal heirs of one Bhagwana, filed a suit for possession asserting that they were owners in possession of land measuring 3 Bighas 11 Biswas comprising in Khasra No. 9/19 and land measuring 1 Bigha 16 Biswas comprising in Khasra No. 9/20/2, total measuring 5 Bighas 7 Biswas in the revenue estate of Village Tatarpur, Delhi.

The land measuring 1 Bigha 19 Biswas out of Khasra No. 9/19 and 16 Biswas out of Khasra No. 9/20/2, in total measuring 2 Bighas 15 Biswas was taken on lease for 20 years commencing from 23rd September, 1954 till 22nd September, 1974 on payment of Rs. 235/- per year by Jagdish Prasad, the defendant. It was agreed between the parties that it will not be open to the plaintiff-lessor to seek ejectment of the defendant-lessee from the leased premises except if the rent for one year remained in arrears.

The entire leased land was acquired pursuant to the notification dated 24th August 1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector determined a sum of Rs. 28,284.85 as the market value of the land acquired including the super structure upon it. A dispute arose with regard to apportionment of compensation and the same was referred to the Reference Court. In such proceedings, three sets of claims were raised, one by the appellants as owners of the land, another by Ram Chand and Jagdish Prasad, as lessee of the land and certain other persons in occupation of the hutments on the land acquired. The defendant-respondent claimed apportionment of compensation in lieu of his lease-hold rights by raising a claim under Section 30 of the Act.

The Reference court held that the respondent had not paid rent for more than 12 months and, thus, in accordance with clause 9 of the lease deed, the lease had come to an end. Therefore, the defendant had no right to claim a share in the compensation payable for the land leased to them.

Finding of the Court:

Plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit premises.

Result: Appeal allowed.