9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Status and nature of possession of a tenant under a void lease. 2. Whether such a tenant can be forcibly evicted by the landlords. 3. Right of the tenant to defend possession through a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Status and Nature of Possession of a Tenant under a Void Lease: The appellant company was accepted as a tenant by the respondents, even though the first lease was executed by the third respondent. The first lease expired on 31st August 1953, and the appellant continued as a tenant, paying rent which was accepted by the respondents. When the second lease was attempted through a consent decree, it was found void for want of registration. Despite this, the appellant continued in possession and paid rent, which was accepted by the respondents. The court held that the appellant continued to be a tenant because the void lease did not alter the nature of its possession. The appellant was in possession as a statutory tenant, enjoying protection under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. The court referenced the case of Anand Nivas Private Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi & Ors., highlighting that a statutory tenant enjoys the status of irremovability. 2. Whether Such a Tenant Can Be Forcibly Evicted by the Landlords: The court ruled that the appellant, as a tenant, could not be forcibly evicted. The respondents' attempt to take possession by locking a portion of the premises on 29th February 1960 was unlawful. The court emphasized that the appellant was entitled to protect its possession unless evicted through due legal process. The High Court's reliance on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was misplaced, as the appellant was not relying on part performance but on its status as a tenant. The court clarified that the appellant's possession was protected under the Rent Restriction Act, and a void lease did not convert the tenant into a trespasser. 3. Right of the Tenant to Defend Possession through a Suit for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction: The appellant was entitled to defend its possession through a suit for declaration of its tenancy rights and for an injunction against the respondents. The trial court had correctly decreed in favor of the appellant, recognizing its status as a tenant and protecting its possession. The appellate courts erred in dismissing the appellant's suit by misinterpreting the legal implications of the void lease and the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's judgment, affirming the appellant's right to protect its possession as a tenant. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the first appellate court, and restored the trial court's judgment in favor of the appellant. The appellant was recognized as a tenant entitled to protection under the relevant Rent Restriction Act and could not be forcibly evicted without due legal process. The court also overruled the preliminary objection regarding the defective certificate granted by the High Court, emphasizing the substantial question of law involved.
|
