9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1247 - SC - Indian LawsSuits for possession of land - retention of possession of that land for the unexpired period of 14 years of the lease in their favour, which was for 20 years in total - time limitation - date of notice termination of lease - which Article of the Limitation Act would be applicable in the present case i.e. Article? Whether the judgment rendered by the Land Acquisition Court on 21st August, 1961 (Ex.PW-1/12) operates as res judicata between the parties as regards the title of the suit property? - HELD THAT - The finding returned in the award of the Reference Court (Ex. PW1/12) that the lease stood determined on account of nonpayment of rent was a finding made by the reference Court for a limited purpose i.e. not to accept the defendant s claim for compensation. Such finding cannot be binding on the parties in a suit for possession based on title or as a lessor against a lessee. Section 11 of the Code bars the subsequent Court to try any suit or issue which has been directly and substantially issue in a former suit. The issue before the Reference Court was apportionment of compensation and such issue having been decided against the defendant, the reference to notice for termination of tenancy does not operate as res judicata. Therefore, the finding recorded by the High Court that the order of the Reference Court operates as res judicata was clearly not sustainable. The first substantial question of law has been, thus, wrongly decided. If the first question is answered in the negative, whether the suit filed by the Respondent for possession is barred by time? - HELD THAT - In terms of Section 62 of the Evidence Act, primary evidence means a document itself produced for inspection by the Court. Section 64 of the Evidence Act stipulates that documents must be proved by primary evidence except in certain cases when secondary evidence can be led. The defendant has not led any evidence, including secondary evidence of the alleged notice said to be served by the plaintiffs. In the absence of primary or secondary evidence available in the suit for possession, the reference to such notice as the starting point of limitation is clearly erroneous and not sustainable. The suit of the plaintiffs filed within 12 years of the determination of the tenancy by efflux of time is within the period of limitation. The defendant has not proved forfeiture of tenancy prior to the expiry of lease period. Mere non-payment of rent does not amount to forfeiture of tenancy. It only confers a right on the landlord to seek possession. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for possession against the defendant on the basis of determination of tenancy, such suit is governed by Article 67 alone. Thus, the suit for possession would not be covered by Article 65 since there is a specific article i.e. Article 67 dealing with right of the lessor to claim possession after determination of tenancy. The appellants-plaintiffs have claimed possession from the defendant alleging him to be the tenant and that he had not handed over the leased property after determination of the lease. Therefore, such suit would fall within Article 67 of the Limitation Act. Such suit having been filed on 13th March, 1981 within 12 years of the determination of lease by efflux of time on 23 rd September, 1974, the same is within the period of limitation. Thus, the findings recorded by the High Court are clearly erroneous in law and the same cannot be sustained and are, thus, set aside. The High Court erred in law in holding that the suit is barred by limitation in terms of Article 66 of the Limitation Act, therefore, the order passed by the High Court is clearly erroneous and is not sustainable in law.
Issues Involved:
1. Res judicata applicability. 2. Limitation period for filing suit. 3. Tenant's status post lease expiry. 4. Adverse possession claim. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Res Judicata Applicability: The High Court held that the finding recorded in the award (Ex.PW1/12) that the lease had ended due to non-payment of rent attained finality and operated as res judicata. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the issue before the Reference Court was restricted to the apportionment of compensation and not the title or eviction of the respondent. The decision of the Reference Court on compensation does not bind the parties in a subsequent suit for possession based on title. The Supreme Court cited precedents, including Union of India v. Nanak Singh, to emphasize that what operates as res judicata is the decision, not the reasons given by the Court. 2. Limitation Period for Filing Suit: The High Court concluded that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 67 of the Limitation Act, as the tenancy was determined on 23rd September 1960, making the suit filed on 13th March 1981 beyond the 12-year period. The Supreme Court, however, found that the notice (Ex.A-3) was never produced in evidence in the suit for possession and thus could not be the starting point of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the suit filed within 12 years of the lease expiry on 23rd September 1974 was within the period of limitation under Article 67. 3. Tenant's Status Post Lease Expiry: The Supreme Court discussed the status of the tenant post lease expiry, referencing Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. It held that the lessee’s status post-lease expiry, without rent payment, is that of a tenant at sufferance, not a tenant holding over. The Court cited several judgments, including Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani, to support this view. The tenant at sufferance does not have the right to continue possession without the lessor's consent. 4. Adverse Possession Claim: The respondent claimed adverse possession, asserting ownership against the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court rejected this claim, stating that the respondent had not proven continuous, open, and hostile possession to the knowledge of the true owner. The Court emphasized that adverse possession requires acknowledgment of the true owner's title, which the respondent failed to demonstrate. The Court referenced Uttam Chand (D) through LRs. v. Nathu Ram (D) through LRs & Ors. to support its decision. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the suit was filed within the limitation period and that the findings of the Reference Court did not operate as res judicata. The Supreme Court restored the decree of the First Appellate Court, thereby decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The appeal was allowed.
|
