1996 (4) TMI 509 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispossession of a tenant without due process of law.
2. Rights of the tenant in possession during execution of a decree.
3. High-handed actions leading to unlawful dispossession.
4. Adjudication of possession rights under Order 21, Rules 98 and 99, CPC.
5. Contempt proceedings for deliberate disobedience of court orders.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court judgment addresses a case involving the dispossession of a tenant without due process of law. The appellant was a tenant in possession of premises under a lease agreement. The landlady had entered into an agreement for sale of the property, leading to a title suit for specific performance. Despite the appellant's possession being known to the 6th respondent, no steps were taken to involve him in the legal proceedings. The key issue was whether the appellant could be dispossessed in execution of the decree in the title suit. The appellant filed a petition under Order 21, Rules 98 and 99, CPC to assert his right to remain in possession, citing an agreement with his employer to allow him to stay until alternative accommodation was provided. The Court Officer was directed to take possession of the property, but subsequent attempts by other parties to take possession were rejected.

The judgment highlights the importance of due process of law and the unlawful nature of the appellant's dispossession without a proper eviction decree. The Court emphasized the need to maintain the status quo and respect the rule of law to prevent anarchy. The appellant's right to possession was upheld pending adjudication under Order 21, Rules 98 and 99, CPC. The Court criticized the high-handed actions of the respondents and ordered costs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee if not settled promptly. The 1st respondent was directed to put the appellant back in possession within 24 hours, and the executing Court was instructed to handle related applications promptly.

Additionally, contempt proceedings were initiated against the 1st respondent for deliberate disobedience of court orders related to the appellant's possession. The Court issued a show-cause notice for possible conviction and directed the 1st respondent to appear in person. The judgment underscores the significance of upholding legal procedures and ensuring compliance with court directives to maintain the sanctity of the law.