Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA VS APL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Syndicate Bank VS Ramachandran Pillai...
Checking relevance for Joseph Severance VS Benny Mathew...
2005 6 Supreme 516 : A suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable against an unauthorized occupant who was previously allowed to stay in a fiduciary capacity, provided the licensor files the suit within a reasonable time after the termination of the licence. The occupant does not become a trespasser the moment the licence ends; the licensor must act with promptitude. If the licensor files the suit promptly, showing that the delay was reasonable—such as allowing time to wind up business—the suit for mandatory injunction will be maintainable. However, if the licensor delays unreasonably, the remedy shifts to a suit for recovery of possession, as the occupant may then be treated as a trespasser. The key factor is whether the suit was filed within a reasonable time under the circumstances, which depends on factual considerations such as the need to wind up business or avoid inconvenience.Checking relevance for S. D. Bandi VS Divisional Traffic Officer, KSRTC...
2013 0 Supreme(SC) 598 : Under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, a person who continues to occupy government premises after the authority to do so has expired or been determined is considered to be in unauthorized occupation. The proper legal remedy for eviction in such cases is an eviction suit under this Act. Section 4 requires issuance of a show cause notice before eviction, and Section 5 provides for the eviction of unauthorized occupants. The Act also mandates that the Estate Officer must pass an eviction order expeditiously, preferably within 15 days, and if the occupant''''s case is not genuine, no more than 15 days'''' time should be granted before using reasonable force as per Section 5(2). Additionally, the court has emphasized that arrears of rent and damages should be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 14, and that the proviso to Section 11(1) should be declared ultra vires as it undermines the Act''''s penal provisions. For persons in fiduciary capacity, the court has recommended that the department concerned must ensure compliance with formalities and follow up actions, and that the occupant must vacate the premises within a prescribed period, with disciplinary action possible if they fail to do so.Checking relevance for Chander Kali Bai VS Jagdish Singh Thakur...
Checking relevance for Manoj Prasad VS General Manager , N. F. Railway, Guwahati...
Checking relevance for Shamim Ahmed Alias Rafique Ahmed VS Custodian Of Enemy Property Of India...
2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 591 : Under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and the Enemy Property Act, 1968, along with the 2015 Rules, the proper legal remedy for eviction of an unauthorized occupant—such as a person who was allowed to stay temporarily in a fiduciary capacity but continues to occupy the premises without authorization—is to institute a suit or legal proceeding in due process of law. The Custodian (or Estate Officer) cannot take physical, vacant possession without a court order. Eviction must follow a procedure that includes issuance of notice and opportunity of hearing to the occupant and all interested parties. If the occupant defaults in rent or refuses to pay, the District Authority, in consultation with the Custodian, may take steps to terminate the lease or evict the occupant upon prior notice, but only in accordance with the 1971 Act. Therefore, the appropriate suit is a legal proceeding under the 1971 Act, not a summary or unilateral eviction.Checking relevance for Shamim Ahmed alias Rafique Ahmed VS Custodian of Enemy Property of India...
Shamim Ahmed alias Rafique Ahmed VS Custodian of Enemy Property of India - Current Civil Cases (2022)
: Under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and the Enemy Property Rules, 2015, the proper legal remedy for eviction of an unauthorized occupant—such as a person who was allowed to stay temporarily in a fiduciary capacity but continues to occupy the property without lawful authority—is to initiate a suit or legal proceeding under Section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the 1971 Act. The Custodian (or Estate Officer) must follow due process, including issuing a prior notice to the occupant and providing an opportunity for hearing before eviction. Physical possession cannot be secured without such a proceeding. Therefore, a mandatory injunction or eviction suit must be filed in due process of law, and the Custodian cannot take physical possession by force or unilateral action. The eviction must be carried out through a legal proceeding under the 1971 Act, which governs the procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises, including enemy property.Checking relevance for Amrit Estates (P. ) Ltd. VS Punjab National Bank...Checking relevance for Vishwa Gaurav Pandey VS Sangeeta Agarwal...
Checking relevance for Sangeeta Bakshi VS Y. R. Aggarwal...
2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 1719 : If a person is occupying your house unauthorisedly after the termination of a temporary permission (even if granted in a fiduciary capacity), the proper legal remedy is a suit for mandatory injunction, provided the owner files the suit promptly within a reasonable time. The licensor (owner) is not required to wait for the licensee to become a trespasser; however, the licensor must act with vigilance and file the suit without inordinate delay. The court held that a licensee’s occupation does not automatically become hostile or that of a trespasser upon termination of the licence, but if the licensor fails to take prompt action to evict the licensee, the ex-licensee may be treated as a trespasser, and the owner can then sue for recovery of possession through a mandatory injunction. The suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable when the owner files it promptly after the licence ends, especially when the licensee fails to vacate despite requests. This principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Joseph Severance and others vs. Benny Mathew and others, 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 559, which emphasized that the licensor must act with promptitude and that the reasonableness of the time taken to file the suit depends on the facts of each case.
