1985 (9) TMI 351 - HC - Companies Law

Court Invalidates Tenancies, Decree-Holder Wins Possession Battle under Transfer of Property Act

The court held that the tenancies created by Brig. Bhawani Shanker were not binding on the decree-holder as he had no title to the property. Tenancies ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the tenancies created by Brig. Bhawani Shanker are binding on the decree-holder.2. Whether the tenancies created during the pendency of the suit are hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.3. Whether the decree-holder is estopped from challenging the right of the objectors to hold possession.4. Whether the decree-holder is entitled to actual possession or merely symbolic possession.5. Whether the sale deed executed and registered in favor of the decree-holder is a nullity.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Binding Nature of Tenancies Created by Brig. Bhawani ShankerThe court held that Brig. Bhawani Shanker had no title or right with respect to the property in question. Since he had no right or title, he could not create any valid tenancies. The court cited Rentala Lachaiah v. Chimmapudi Subrahmanyam, where it was held that tenancy rights could not be created by a person who had no title in the property. Thus, the tenancies created by Brig. Bhawani Shanker were not binding on the decree-holder.Issue 2: Tenancies and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property ActThe court noted that according to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is not binding on the decree-holder. The tenancies in favor of SMS Corporation and Batliboi were created after the Transfer of Property Act came into force in Delhi (December 1, 1962) and during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, these tenancies were invalid. The court also emphasized that the principles underlying Section 52, which are based on justice, equity, and good conscience, would apply even if the Act were not in force.Issue 3: Estoppel and WaiverThe court examined the letter dated February 23, 1983, and the application filed by the decree-holder in the Supreme Court. The court concluded that neither the letter nor the application constituted an acceptance of the objectors as tenants. The letter explicitly stated that the decree-holder did not recognize the objectors as tenants and demanded possession from them. The court held that there was no waiver or estoppel, and the objectors did not become tenants under the decree-holder.Issue 4: Entitlement to Physical PossessionThe court rejected the argument that the decree-holder was only entitled to symbolic possession. It relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, which held that possession is inherent in a decree for specific performance. The court noted that the suit for specific performance was brought before the Specific Relief Act, 1963 came into force, and the decree-holder had complied with the decree by depositing the purchase money. Thus, the decree-holder was entitled to physical possession of the property.Issue 5: Validity of the Sale DeedThe court addressed the objections regarding the procedure followed in executing the sale deed. It held that the sale deed was executed in accordance with the decree, which provided that the Registrar of the court should execute the sale deed if the judgment-debtors failed to do so within two months. The omission to obtain objections from the judgment-debtors regarding the draft of the sale deed was deemed a technical and formal defect that did not prejudice the judgment-debtors. Therefore, the sale deed was not a nullity and was binding.Conclusion:The court dismissed all objection petitions and held that the decree-holder was entitled to physical possession of the property. The objectors were given 15 days to vacate the premises and hand over possession to the decree-holder. If they failed to do so, the court directed the issuance of warrants of possession and authorized the use of police aid to deliver possession.