9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the dispossession of the plaintiff by defendant No. 3. 2. Right to renewal of the agreement by the plaintiff. 3. Nature of the agreement: whether it was a license or sub-lease. 4. Conduct of defendant No. 3 and its impact on the appeal. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the dispossession of the plaintiff by defendant No. 3: The trial court found that defendant No. 3 had unlawfully obtained possession of the restaurant and the premises by colluding with defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and had surreptitiously entered into possession behind the plaintiff's back. The trial court held that the plaintiff was unlawfully deprived of possession and that defendant No. 3 could only regain possession by recourse to law. The High Court agreed with the trial court's assessment, noting serious inconsistencies in the evidence provided by defendant No. 3 and his witnesses, and concluded that defendant No. 3's actions amounted to trespass. The Supreme Court upheld these findings, emphasizing that settled possession cannot be disturbed except by legal means, citing precedents such as Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh and Ors. and Midnapur Zamindary Company Limited v. Naresh Narayan Roy. 2. Right to renewal of the agreement by the plaintiff: The trial court rejected the contention that the possession should not be restored to the plaintiff because the agreement period had expired. It held that the right of renewal remained in favor of the plaintiff. The High Court also rejected this contention, stating that allowing defendant No. 3 to remain in possession would be a travesty of justice. The Supreme Court did not find it necessary to delve into whether the plaintiff was entitled to renewal, as the primary issue was the unlawful dispossession. 3. Nature of the agreement: whether it was a license or sub-lease: The High Court observed that although the agreements were termed as "license," they were actually sub-leases, which meant the plaintiff's possession was lawful even after the period of the license. The Supreme Court chose not to consider this question in detail, as the suit was filed shortly after the plaintiff was unlawfully deprived of possession, making the distinction between license and sub-lease less relevant to the case. 4. Conduct of defendant No. 3 and its impact on the appeal: The Supreme Court noted the unlawful conduct of defendant No. 3, including taking possession behind the plaintiff's back and attempting to retain possession by any means, right or wrong. The Court highlighted that defendant No. 3 had even filed a bogus suit to delay compliance with the decree. The Court found that such conduct did not merit any interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs throughout. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the judgments of the lower courts, and ordered the Court Receiver of the Bombay High Court to take possession of the business and premises and put the plaintiff in possession as his agent. This order was to remain in force for eight weeks, subject to any orders by the executing court.
|
