Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.36518 of 2013

Sheela Jawarlal Nagori & Anr.                     …..Petitioners

Versus

Kantilal Nathmal Baldota & Ors.                          …Respondents

AND

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.37456 of 2013

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The question before us is whether a landlord can maintain a  

suit  for  eviction  of  his  tenant  even  after  an  award  has  been  

passed in respect of the tenanted property under the provisions  

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In our opinion, the answer must  

be in the affirmative.

2. The  petitioners  in  both  special  leave  petitions  are  the  

tenants  of  the  respondent  landlord.  For  convenience  we  have  

taken the facts from SLP (C) No. 37456 of 2013, but note that the  

issue that arises in both the cases is the same and the hearing  SLP (C) No. 36518 of 2013                                                                                              Page 1 of 8

Page 2

proceeded on this basis.

3. The landlord had instituted Civil Suit No. 433 of 2000 in the  

Court of the 5th Additional Small Cause Judge and Jt. Civil Judge,  

Senior Division, Pune for vacant possession of the ‘suit property’  

being CTS Old 99-B Raviwar Peth, New 767 Budhwar Peth, Pune  

from the tenant. The contention of the landlord was that the suit  

property was open space let out to the tenants and that it was not  

protected by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short  

the Act).  The Trial Court accepted the contention of the landlord  

and passed a decree on 28th June, 2005 directing the tenant to  

hand over vacant possession of the suit property.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant preferred Civil Appeal No. 515  

of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Pune. The appeal was  

allowed by a judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2006 and  

the decree passed by the Trial Court set aside.  It was held that  

the suit property was an open plot and that the provisions of the  

Act were not applicable,  but it  was held that the tenancy was  

required to be terminated in terms of Section 106 of the Transfer  

of Property Act, 1882.

SLP (C) No. 36518 of 2013                                                                                              Page 2 of 8

Page 3

5. The judgment and order passed by the appellate Court has  

attained  finality  since  neither  the  tenant  nor  the  landlord  has  

challenged it.

6. Following up on the order passed by the Additional District  

Judge, the landlord issued a notice to the tenant on 13th February,  

2006 terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer  

of Property Act, 1882.  The tenant did not respond to the notice  

and that led the landlord to file Civil Suit No. 207 of 2006 in the  

Court of the Small Causes Judge, Pune for eviction of the tenant.  

The suit  was  decreed on  3rd March,  2009  and the  tenant  was  

directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the  

landlord.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant preferred Civil Appeal No. 225  

of  2009  before  the  District  Judge  but  that  was  dismissed  by  

judgment  and order  dated 19th January,  2012.  The tenant  was  

given two months time to vacate the suit property.

8. Against  the  decision  passed  by  the  appellate  Court  the  

tenant  preferred  Writ  Petition  No.  2089  of  2012  which  was  

dismissed by the Bombay High Court by its judgment and order  

dated 24th October, 2013 (impugned). SLP (C) No. 36518 of 2013                                                                                              Page 3 of 8

Page 4

9. In all the proceedings, the finding of fact has been that the  

suit  property let  out  to  the tenant was open land.  We are not  

inclined to disturb this finding of fact arrived at by several Courts  

and indeed this finding was not seriously challenged by learned  

counsel for the tenant.   

10. The question raised by the tenant is that the suit property  

was acquired by the Pune Municipal Corporation for the purpose  

of a primary school and the Special Land Acquisition Officer had  

passed  an  award  in  respect  thereof  on  3rd August,  1979.  

Accordingly,  the  landlord  was  divested  of  his  right,  title  and  

interest in the suit property after the land acquisition proceedings  

and  therefore  a  suit  for  eviction  of  the  tenant  was  not  

maintainable.

11. The High Court noted that there was no material on record to  

suggest  that  the  Pune  Municipal  Corporation  had  taken  

possession  of  the  suit  property  from  the  landlord.   On  the  

contrary,  the  Corporation  had  sanctioned  a  development  plan  

submitted by the landlord in respect of the suit property through  

a notification issued on 5th January, 1987. It  is clear, therefore,  

that  the  Corporation  had  not  taken  possession  nor  had  any  SLP (C) No. 36518 of 2013                                                                                              Page 4 of 8

Page 5

intention of taking possession of the suit property.

12. That  apart,  Section  16  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  

enables  the acquiring authority  to  take possession of  acquired  

land  and  when  that  is  taken,  it  would  be  free  from  all  

encumbrances. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads  

as follows:

16.  Power  to  take  possession  -  When  the  Collector has made an award under Section 11, he  may  take  possession  of  the  land,  which  shall  thereupon vest  absolutely  in  the Government,  free  from all encumbrances.

Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision, in the absence of  

possession of the suit property being taken by the Corporation,  

the  contention  of  learned  counsel  for  the  tenant  cannot  be  

accepted  that  the  landlord  was  divested  of  his  right,  title  or  

interest in the suit property.

13. We may also note that it was brought out during the course  

of hearing that the tenant continues to pay rent to the landlord  

even though according to the tenant the landlord had no concern  

with the suit property after the award was passed on 3 rd August,  

1979 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.  The stand of the  

SLP (C) No. 36518 of 2013                                                                                              Page 5 of 8

Page 6

tenant  seems  to  be  self-defeating  for  on  the  one  hand  it  is  

submitted that the landlord had no right, title or interest in the  

suit property but on the other hand the tenant continues paying  

rent to him.

14. An issue that arises out of these cases, and which we would  

like to flag, relates to the purpose and effectiveness of an order  

passed by the High Court granting time to the tenants to vacate  

suit premises. We are mentioning this because in these cases, the  

tenants had the benefit of an interim order passed by the High  

Court staying the execution of the decree against them as well as  

a stay of operation of the judgments of the Trial Court and the  

appellate Court. On the dismissal of the proceedings by the High  

Court, learned counsel for the tenants applied for continuation of  

the interim order for a period of 12 weeks.  He stated that the  

tenants would file an undertaking along with all others using the  

suit  property  on  or  before  19th November,  2013  incorporating  

therein the following terms: (i) that they are in possession of the  

suit premises and nobody else is in possession; (ii) that they have  

neither created third party interests nor parted with possession;  

(iii) that they will hereafter neither create third party interests nor  SLP (C) No. 36518 of 2013                                                                                              Page 6 of 8

Page 7

part with possession of the suit premises, (iv) that they will clear  

all arrears of rent, if any, within four weeks subject to adjustment,  

(v) they will not apply for extension of time, and (vi) that in case  

they are unable to obtain suitable orders from this Court within 12  

weeks, they will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the  

suit premises to the landlord.  

15. The tenants failed to file any such undertaking in the High  

Court on or before 19th November, 2013.  This was brought to our  

notice by the landlord on 4th February, 2014 and we directed the  

tenants to file the necessary undertaking as ordered by the High  

Court within a week. We were subsequently given to understand  

that the undertaking was filed.     

16. These cases indicate that even though the High Court trusts  

a litigant before it to comply with its orders, sometimes a litigant  

does not take the High Court seriously. This is unfortunate and  

undermines the authority of the Court. We feel the recurrence of  

a situation as has happened in these cases needs to be avoided.  

Therefore,  the  High  Court  would  be  well  advised  to  consider  

having the tenant first file an undertaking and placed on record  

SLP (C) No. 36518 of 2013                                                                                              Page 7 of 8

Page 8

before granting any interim order after dismissal of the tenant’s  

petition.  Otherwise this  may place the High Court  in  a difficult  

position where its order is flagrantly disobeyed, as has happened  

in these cases.

17. We find no merit in these petitions and they are accordingly  

dismissed.  The interim applications are also dismissed.    

    ……………………………………J              (Ranjana Prakash Desai)

            ……………………………………J              (Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi; March 25, 2014   

SLP (C) No. 36518 of 2013                                                                                              Page 8 of 8