Allegations of Illegal Eviction Remain Unresolved: Supreme Court
Case title: Sanjay Maruti Jadhav v. Amit Tatoba Sawant
Case no: Civil appeal No. 72 of 2012
Dated on: April 26,2024
Quorum: Justice Vikram Nath.
Facts of the case:
A Leave and License Agreement was entered between the Appellants and the Respondent. The Appellants are the owners of the property, which was the subject matter of the Suit. The Respondent herein had filed Suit against the Appellant for illegal and unauthorized eviction from the Suit Schedule property which was decreed by the Trial Court and further concurred by the High Court as well. Appellant, aggrieved by the Orders of the High Court, preferred Civil Appeal wherein the Supreme Court had reserved the matter for orders on 18.01.2024. The Supreme Court, left it open for the parties to move appropriate application within a period of two weeks, in case there is any probability for settlement. However, as three months elapsed and since no such application was filed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded to decide the matter on merits.
Contentions of the appellant:
The Appellants contended that the Suit under Section 6 of The Specific Relief Act not being maintainable. The subject property was handed over voluntarily by the Respondent and to prove the said contention the Appellant relied on the Possession Receipt.
Contentions of the respondent:
The Respondent filed a suit, within six months of dispossession, under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1961 by alleging that they were illegally and unauthorizedly by use of force, evicted by the Appellant.
Issues:
Whether any merit is there in the Appeal preferred and whether any interference is required?
Legal Provisions:
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act: Suit by person disposed of immovable property.
Courts judgement and analysis:
The Trial Court decreed the suit of the Respondent disbelieving the contentions of the Appellants that the subject property was handed over voluntarily by the Respondent thereby not talking into consideration the possession receipt relied upon by the Appellant. The Trial Court rejected the appellant’s plea of non-maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Appellant, aggrieved by the decision preferred a Revision Petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The High Court also found that the plea of maintainability of the suit raised by the appellant was devoid of merits and further concurred with the finding of the Trial Court that the Respondent was illegally dispossessed by the Respondent. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed as there are concurrent findings, based upon the evidence on record and findings of fact.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.
Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.