1. Suit for possession of land — Lease agreement — Land acquisition and subsequent de-notification — Dispute over lease termination and possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
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
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Sanjay Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Harish Pandey, Shree Pal Singh, Advocate
For the Appellant(s) :Sanjay Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Harish Pandey, Shree Pal Singh, Advocate
Important Points
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.
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.
Subject
Property Law - Landlord-Tenant Disputes
Act Referred
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.6 R.17, O.21 R.97, S.11
EVIDENCE ACT: S.62, S.64
LAND ACQUISITION ACT: S.4, S.30, S.48(1)
LIMITATION ACT: Art.66, Art.67, Art.65, S.139, S.67, S.28
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT: S.111, S.106, S.116, S.108(q)
EVIDENCE ACT: S.62, S.64
LAND ACQUISITION ACT: S.4, S.30, S.48(1)
LIMITATION ACT: Art.66, Art.67, Art.65, S.139, S.67, S.28
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT: S.111, S.106, S.116, S.108(q)
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
- limitation law
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Res judicata of previous reference court award — Applicability of Limitation Act Articles 65, 66, or 67 — Claim of adverse possession. (Para 10 , 11 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Reference court findings on compensation are not res judicata for possession — Non-payment of rent creates tenancy at sufferance — Evidence of notice not proved. (Para 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 37 )
4. Findings on lease termination for compensation purposes are not res judicata for possession — Recovery from tenant at sufferance is governed by Article 67, Limitation Act. (Para 27 , 38 , 39 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Suit for possession decreed. (Para 42 )
6. Does a finding on lease termination in a land acquisition reference operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit for possession?
No. Findings made for the limited purpose of apportioning compensation do not operate as res judicata in a suit for possession. Only the decision on the matter in issue is res judicata, not the reasons given for it. (Para 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
7. When does a lessee become a tenant at sufferance instead of a tenant holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act?
A lessee becomes a tenant at sufferance if they remain in possession after the lease expires without the lessor's consent. A tenancy is renewed as holding over only if the lessor accepts rent or otherwise assents to the continued possession. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 35 )
8. Which article of the Limitation Act applies to a landlord seeking possession from a tenant after the lease is determined?
Article 67 applies, providing a twelve-year limitation period starting from the date the tenancy is determined. This takes precedence over general articles like Article 65 when a specific article for the subject exists. (Para 18 , 36 , 38 , 39 )
9. Can a tenant claim adverse possession against a landlord without first surrendering possession?
No. A tenant who was let into possession cannot deny the landlord's title or plead adverse possession without first openly and actually surrendering possession and restoring the premises to the landlord. (Para 33 , 37 , 41 )
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 12th November, 2010 whereby the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed and the suit for possession of land comprising in Khasra No. 9/19 measuring 3 Bighas 11 Biswas was dismissed.
2. 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.
3. 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, however, if the rent for one year remained in arrear, then the lessor would have the right to eject the lessee. The relevant conditions read as under:
“7. Before the expiry of said lease it shall not be within the rights of the lessor i.e. party of the First Part to seek ejectment of party of the second part from the leased premises.
xxx xxx xxx
9. If rent for one year remains in arrears, then in that eventuality the lessor i.e. party of the First Part will have the right to eject the lessee i.e. party of the Second Part from the property leased and the party of the Second Part will remove all his malba from the land leased and deliver vacant possession to the party of the First Part.”
4. The entire leased land was acquired pursuant to the notification dated 24th August 1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short ‘Act’]. 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 relevant paras from such claim petition filed by the defendant read as under:
“1. That Shri Nand Ram and Shri Bhagwana sons of Lakhi Ram were the owners of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 9/19 and 9/20/2 situated at Mauza Tatarpur, Delhi State.
2. That the said Shri Nand Ram and Shri Bhagwana leased out land measuring 1 bigha 19 biswa out of Khasra No. 9/19 and 16 biswa out of Khasra No. 9/20/2 to Shri Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Daurilal, resident of Tatarpur the claimant herein for a period of twenty years by lease deed dated 22.9.54 and registered on 11.10.54.”
5. The respondent-defendant claimed share in the compensation for 2 Bighas 15 Biswas of land on the ground that they were deprived of the right to retain possession of that land for the unexpired period of 14 years of the lease in their favour, which was for 20 years in total. The Reference Court framed the following issues to determine the claim of rival claimants:
“1. Whether Jagdish and Ram Chand mentioned at Items No. 27 and 28 are entitled to any share of the compensation awarded for land measuring 2 Bighas and 15 Biswas which was on lease with them and if so, to how much?
2. Whether Nand Ram and Bhagwana have any lien on Rs. 2263.20 for the structure belonging to Jagdish and Ram Chand. If so, in what manner and to what extent?
3. Whether the Jhugis on the land measuring 2 Bighas an
