1989 (8) TMI 370 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Decision in Unlawful Dispossession Case

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions in a case involving the unlawful dispossession of the plaintiff by defendant No. 3. It was found that ... Unlawful dispossession and right to possession - requirement of judicial process to dispossess settled possessor - characterisation of licence versus sub-lease (incidental) - entertainment of special leave under Article 136 - appointment of receiver and directions for execution of decreeUnlawful dispossession and right to possession - requirement of judicial process to dispossess settled possessor - Whether defendant No. 3 unlawfully obtained possession of the restaurant and whether the plaintiff was entitled to restoration of possession and mesne profits - HELD THAT: - The Trial Court and the High Court both found that defendant No. 3 obtained possession of the restaurant by collusion with defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and surreptitiously took possession behind the plaintiff's back; their concurrent findings of fact as to the inconsistencies and lack of credibility in defendant No. 3's evidence were accepted. The Court applied the well-settled principle that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed by the owner except by recourse to law and therefore, even if the licence had expired, forcible dispossession was impermissible. On these bases the plaintiff was held entitled to a decree for possession and to mesne profits. The reasoning was founded on credibility findings below and the legal rule forbidding self-help to dispossess one in settled possession. [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8]Defendant No. 3 had unlawfully obtained possession; the plaintiff was entitled to restoration of possession and mesne profits.Characterisation of licence versus sub-lease (incidental) - Whether the licence had expired so as to deprive the plaintiff of any right to remain in possession - HELD THAT: - Although the parties debated whether the agreement was a licence or a sub-lease and whether the term had expired, the Court did not decide the precise legal characterisation as determinative. The High Court treated the agreements as being akin to sub-leases for the purpose of possession, and this Court observed that the question need not be resolved because even on the contention that the licence had ended, the principle that a party cannot effect forcible dispossession without recourse to law governed the outcome. Consequently the appellant's contention that expiry of term defeated the plaintiff's right to possession was repelled on the facts and by application of the settled rule against self-help. [Paras 6, 7, 9]The contention that expiry of the licence deprived the plaintiff of the right to possession was rejected; the Court did not rest the decree on resolving licence versus sub-lease but on the prohibition of forcible dispossession.Entertainment of special leave under Article 136 - Whether this Court should entertain the appeal under Article 136 - HELD THAT: - Having regard to the conduct of defendant No. 3 - including the manner of obtaining possession, attempts to retain possession, filing of a subsequent suit described as frivolous, disbelieved evidence below, and a reckless statement about the respondent's death - the Court concluded that the provisions of Article 136 should not be invoked to assist such a litigant. The Court therefore declined to interfere with the High Court's dismissal of the appeal and dismissed the special leave appeal with costs. [Paras 10, 11]The appeal under Article 136 was declined and dismissed.Appointment of receiver and directions for execution of decree - Relief and incidental directions for execution of the decree for possession - HELD THAT: - The Court, mindful of the appellant's conduct and the risk of avoidance of the decree, appointed the Court Receiver of the Bombay High Court as Receiver of the business and the premises. The Receiver was authorised to take possession from whosoever might be in possession and to seek police assistance if necessary, and to put the plaintiff in possession as his agent on usual terms (without security and without asking for royalty) for a limited period of eight weeks, subject to subsequent orders of the executing court. The Court also directed release of amounts deposited by the appellant to the plaintiff. [Paras 11, 12]Court Receiver appointed to take possession and place the plaintiff in possession; deposited amount to be released to the plaintiff.Final Conclusion: The special leave appeal is dismissed; concurrent findings that defendant No. 3 unlawfully obtained possession are affirmed, the plaintiff is entitled to restoration of possession and mesne profits, the Court Receiver of the Bombay High Court is appointed to take possession and put the plaintiff in possession on stated terms for a limited period, and the amount deposited by the appellant is ordered released to the plaintiff. 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.