Owner Of Property Must Follow ‘Manner Provided By Law’ To Dispossess Even An Unauthorized Occupant: Uttarakhand High Court

While dismissing the petition filed by the owners, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari added:

“Although, it is settled position in law that injunction cannot be granted against true owner of the property, however, it is equally well settled in our jurisprudence governed by rule of law that even an unauthorized occupant can be ejected from a property only in the manner provided by law.”

Factual Background

The respondent was admitted as tenant in respect of a shop, by its owner in 1995. After death of the owner, his son became owner of the shop and a fresh lease deed was executed between him and the respondent. Subsequently, the shop was transferred by the son in favour of the present petitioners.

Anticipating his forcible eviction from the said shop, the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction. The Trial Court, however, rejected his application. But the appeal filed by respondent under Order 43 Rule 1(r), CPC was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. Being aggrieved by the judgment handed down by the Appellate Court, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

Court’s Observations

The Court at the outset noted that upon refusal of landlords to accept rent, the respondent was depositing the same in Court under Section 30(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Thus, the Bench was of the opinion that merely because the order passed under Section 30(1) of the Act was later on set aside on technical ground by the Revisional Court, will not authorize the landlords to forcibly evict the tenant.

The Court placed reliance on Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh, wherein the Apex Court cited with approval the following observation made by Bombay High Court in K.K. Verma v. Union of India,

“Under the Indian law the possession of a tenant who has ceased to be a tenant is protected by law. Although he may not have a right to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy his possession is juridical and that possession is protected by statute. Under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, a tenant, who has ceased to be a tenant, may sue for possession against his landlord if the landlord deprives him of possession otherwise than in due course of law…”

It also referred Midapur Zamindary Company Ltd. v. Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy, wherein the Privy Council held that in India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession. They must obtain such possession as they are entitled to by proper course.

Lastly, the Court also cited East India Hotels Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank, to reiterate that even an unauthorized occupant can be evicted only in the manner provided by law. In the above case, the Supreme Court observed:

“It is thus clear that the courts have viewed with askance any process other than strict compliance of law as valid in dispossessing a person in occupation of immovable property against his consent. The reason is obvious that it aims to preserve the efficacy of law and peace and order in the society relegating the jurisprudential perspectives to a suit under Section 5 of the Act and restitute possession to the person dispossessed, irrespective of the fact whether he has any title to possession or not.”

Having regard for the aforesaid settled position of law, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Tejendra Singh & Anr. v. Mohd. Anis Ahamd

Case No.: Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3015 of 2022

Judgment Dated: 2^nd January 2023

Coram: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. S.K. Posti, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ashutosh Posti, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: None

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Utt) 1