2001 (7) TMI 1294 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Obligation of the State Government to restore possession of requisitioned premises.
2. Status of possession: juridical vs. lawful possession.
3. Impact of lease expiration on the right to possession.
4. Applicability of general principles for recovery of requisitioned property.
5. Legal standing of lessees post-expiry of lease.
6. Distinction between acquisition and requisition.
7. Judicial interpretation of "liberty to mention" in judgments.
8. Rights of lessees in the context of expired leases and requisition orders.
9. The concept of tenant holding over vs. tenant at sufferance.
10. Specific performance and its implications on possession rights.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Obligation of the State Government to Restore Possession:
The primary issue was whether the State Government was obligated to restore possession of requisitioned premises to the owners or to the tenants/lessees from whom possession was initially taken. The Supreme Court noted that juridical possession, while protected by law against wrongful dispossession, is not always equivalent to lawful possession. The High Court had negated the argument that tenants/lessees were entitled to receive back possession post-requisition.

2. Status of Possession: Juridical vs. Lawful Possession:
The court distinguished between juridical possession and lawful possession, emphasizing that lawful possession requires a positive legal right to possess the property. The court cited previous judgments, noting that a tenant cannot be said to continue in lawful possession against the landlord's wishes if the lease has expired and is not protected by statutory law.

3. Impact of Lease Expiration on the Right to Possession:
The lease in question expired by efflux of time during the pendency of the appeal. The court had to consider whether the lessees retained any right to possession after the lease expired. The court concluded that the lessees had no legal right to the property post-expiry of the lease, as their possessory rights were suspended during the requisition period.

4. Applicability of General Principles for Recovery of Requisitioned Property:
Mr. Gupta argued that general principles dictate that possession should be returned to the person from whom it was taken. However, the court found that the special factual feature of the lease's expiration impacted this principle, making it inapplicable in this case.

5. Legal Standing of Lessees Post-Expiry of Lease:
The court examined whether lessees could be considered tenants holding over or trespassers after the lease expired. It concluded that the lessees had lost their legal right to possess the property and could not be restored to possession after the lease's expiration.

6. Distinction Between Acquisition and Requisition:
The court noted that acquisition involves a permanent transfer of title, while requisition is temporary and does not transfer ownership rights. This distinction was crucial in determining the rights of the parties involved.

7. Judicial Interpretation of "Liberty to Mention" in Judgments:
The court addressed the "liberty to mention" clause, noting that it cannot be used to reopen settled issues or confer jurisdiction to re-judge a matter. It is meant for clarification purposes only and does not allow for a review of the judgment.

8. Rights of Lessees in the Context of Expired Leases and Requisition Orders:
The court emphasized that lessees whose leases have expired do not retain possessory rights, especially when the lease expired during the requisition period. The lessees' rights were considered obliterated by the lease's expiration and the requisition order.

9. The Concept of Tenant Holding Over vs. Tenant at Sufferance:
The court distinguished between a tenant holding over (with the landlord's consent) and a tenant at sufferance (without consent). The lessees in this case were not in possession and thus could not be considered tenants holding over.

10. Specific Performance and Its Implications on Possession Rights:
The court noted that one of the lessees had filed a suit for specific performance based on an alleged oral agreement for the sale of the property. However, this suit was dismissed for default, and the court did not find it relevant to the issue of possession rights.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the lessees had no legal right to possess the property after the lease expired. The court emphasized that the general principles of recovery of requisitioned property did not apply in this case due to the lease's expiration and the requisition order. The judgment was delivered without prejudice to the rights of the parties to pursue other legal remedies.