9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after referred to as 'landlady') who had entered into a lease with M/s. Indian Foils Ltd. on March 27, 1969 for the demise of the said property to the said company. In furtherance thereof, possession of the premises was, admittedly, given to the appellant. The landlady had entered into an agreement with the 6th respondent, M/s. Habitat Developers on October 17, 1985 for sale of the property for a sum of ₹ 40 lakhs. For the enforcement thereof, the 6th respondent filed title suit No. 137 of 1986 for specific performance in the court of the Second Assistant Judge, Alipur. In the written statement filed by the landlady, she had admitted thus: One Mr. Sanyal was inducted into the premises by India Foils Ltd. Consequently, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t events in chronology which have cropped up in several of the proceedings. Admittedly, on a petition filed by the appellant, the High Court had directed a Court Officer to be in possession of the property. In furtherance thereof, the Court Officer did take possession of the property. Later, attempts have been made by the first respondent who was said to have entered into a lease with the 3rd respondent, to come into the possession of the property, but they were rejected by the executing Court as well as by the High Court on appeal. The 6th respondent assigned his rights in the decree to the 3rd respondent Pranav Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. In the application for continuance of the appellant's possession the executing Court directed the Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and circumstances, we think that interim suspension of the High Court's order be made. It is accordingly made. 6. It would thus be clear that without any decree or order of eviction of the appellant from the demised premises, he had been unlawfully dispossessed from the premises without any due process of law. The question, therefore, is: whether he should be allowed to remain in possession till his application under Order 21, Rules 98 and 99 is adjudicated upon and an order made. Though the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and also for the 3rd respondent, who is one of the transferees from the 6th respondent, sought to contend that the appellant has no right to remain in possession after the lessee, M/s. India Foils Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d remain a mortuary. 7. Under these circumstances, we are left with no option but to allow the appeal with costs quantified at ₹ 7,500, against each of the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 6 to be payable to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. If the amount is not paid within one month from to-day, the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee would be entitled to recover the same from them by execution of this order as decree. 8. The 1st respondent is directed to put the appellant in possession within 24 hours. The executing Court is directed to dispose of the application filed by respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9, heirs of the landlady filed under Section 28 of the Special Relief Act, 1963 for rescinding the contract along with the application fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
