https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789372 Eviction could not be sustained while the connected application on the lease deed and the appellant's asserted possession remained undecided, because the question whether the appellant was an encroacher depended on that pending determination. The unresolved issue of the right to occupy the property had to be examined together with the lease-related proceeding, and eviction during its pendency was inconsistent with that position. The eviction order was therefore set aside, the matter was remanded for consideration along with the pending application, and the appellant's possession was directed to continue until those proceedings are decided. en-us Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789372 Eviction could not be sustained while the connected application on the lease deed and the appellant's asserted possession remained undecided, because the question whether the appellant was an encroacher depended on that pending determination. The unresolved issue of the right to occupy the property had to be examined together with the lease-related proceeding, and eviction during its pendency was inconsistent with that position. The eviction order was therefore set aside, the matter was remanded for consideration along with the pending application, and the appellant's possession was directed to continue until those proceedings are decided. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789372