Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Lalit Kumar Bagla And Ors vs Rajiv Kumar Poddar And Ors on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE/INHERENT JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.19940/2017
LALIT KUMAR BAGLA AND ORS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAJIV KUMAR PODDAR AND ORS Respondent(s)
WITH
CONMT.PET.(C) No.961/2021 in CIVIL APPEAL NO.19941/2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 19941/2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 19943/2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 19942/2017
O R D E R
These appeals by Special Leave arise out of the judgment and
order dated 20.05.2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Calcutta in APD No.501-503 of 2015 and APO
No.46 of 2016.
The basic facts as set out in the judgment under appeal are as
under:
“Sometime in 1987, Smt. Sarada Devi Poddar, one of
the heirs of the original lessee filed Title Suit No.
133 of 1987 in the Court of the 5th Munsif, Howrah for
eviction of Patel Timber Industries from the, said
premises.
Patel Timber Industries filed a written statement in
the said suit, claiming protection against eviction, by
Signature Not Verified
recourse to the provisions of the Thika Tenancy Act of
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2022.05.11
1981. By a judgment dated 20th May, 1992 the learned
16:00:25 IST
Reason: 5th Civil Judge held that Patel Timber Industries was a
'thika tenant' and dismissed the suit as not
maintainable.
Smt. Sarada Devi Poddar filed an appeal being Misc.
2
Appeal No. 150 of 1992 against the aforesaid judgment
and Order dated 20th May, 1992 in the Court of the
learned District Judge, Howrah. The said appeal was
allowed by the District Judge, Howrah by a judgment and
Order dated 5th April, 1992.
Patel Timber Industries filed a Civil Revisional
Application being C.O. No. 1912 of 1999 in this Court
against the order of the District Court. By a judgment
and Order dated 18th September 2001, this Court set
aside the judgment and order of the District Judge,
Howrah on the ground that no appeal lay from the
judgment and Order dated 20th May, 1992, declaring
Patel Timber Industries as a 'thika tenant'. Liberty
was however given to the Poddars to file a Civil
Revisional Application, challenging the judgment and
Order dated 20th May, 1992 of the learned Civil Judge.
It is not in dispute that the Poddars neither
challenged the order of this Court before any higher
forum, nor filed any revisional application
challenging the judgment and order of the learned
Munsif as per the leave granted by this Court. The
order of the learned Civil Judge passed on 20th May,
1992 has assumed finality .
In 1990 Poddars filed a suit against the Baglas being
Title Suit No. 240 of 1990 praying inter alia for
Specific Performance of the contract between the Baglas
and the Poddars, which provided for renewal of the
lease. The suit was later transferred to this Court and
numbered as Extraordinary Suit No. 4 of 2003.
On or about 20th August, 1991, the Baglas filed a
suit being Title Suit No. 232 of 1991 in the Howrah
Court against the Poddars for eviction on the ground of
expiry of lease. Patel Timber Industries or other sub-
tenants and/ or persons inducted by the Poddars were
not impleaded parties to the suit. The said suit was
also transferred to this Court and re-numbered as
Extraordinary Suit No. 3 of 2003.
On or about 30th June, 2005 the suit filed by the
Baglas being E.O.S. No. 3 of 2003 against the Poddars
for recovery of possession was dismissed. The suit
filed by the Poddars being E.0.S. No. 4 of 2004
succeeded.
The Baglas filed two appeals before the Division
Bench of this Court, which were disposed of in favour
of the Baglas, by a judgment and Order dated 11th
August, 2010. The Division Bench decreed the suit for
eviction against the Poddars.”
3
…...
“The Baglas filed an application being EC No.90 of
2011 in this Court for execution of the eviction decree
against the Poddars. By an Order dated 8th March 2011,
the learned Single Bench of this Court appointed a.
Receiver over the said premises with a direction on the
Receiver to take symbolical possession of the said
premises.
Pursuant to the aforesaid Order dated 8th March,
2011 of this Court, the learned Receiver pasted a
notice on the entrance gate of the said premises
whereupon. Patel Timber Industries moved the
intervention application being G.A. No. 1034 of 2011
in the said intervention case, which has been
dismissed by the judgment and Order dated 23rd
September, 2015 under appeal. As observed above other
sub-tenants and/ or sub-lessees inducted by the
Poddars similarly circumstanced as Patel Timber
Industries, also filed intervention applications,
which have been dismissed.”
While accepting the case of M/s Patel Timber Industries
(the applicant, for short), the Division Bench of the High
Court observed that the final order passed by the Thika
Controller dated 23.09.2015 being subsisting, the applicant
was entitled to resist dispossession and execution of a
decree obtained by the Baglas against the Poddars and the
applicant was entitled to claim an independent right to
remain in possession of the premises in question.
The instant appeals take exception to the determination
made by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, learned advocate in
support of the appeals and Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned
Senior Advocate for the applicant.
4
As observed by the Division Bench in the judgment under
appeal, after the declaration in favour of the applicant, a
direct relationship stood established between the State of
West Bengal on one part and the applicant on the other.
It has further been observed that the applicant as
occupier has deposited tax with Municipal Authorities.
Considering the entirety of the circumstances on record,
we see no reason to take a different view in the matter. We
affirm the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court
and dismiss the instant appeals without making any order as
to costs.
In view of the dismissal of appeals, no separate orders
are called for in the Contempt Petition which is accordingly
closed.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………………………J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
……………………………………………….………………………J.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]
……………………………………………….………………………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
New Delhi;
May 4, 2022.
5
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 19940/2017
LALIT KUMAR BAGLA AND ORS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAJIV KUMAR PODDAR AND ORS Respondent(s)
WITH
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 961/2021 in C.A. No. 19941/2017 (XVI)
(IA No.135877/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
C.A. No. 19942/2017 (XVI)
C.A. No. 19941/2017 (XVI)
(IA No. 92487/2021 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION)
C.A. No. 19943/2017 (XVI)
Date : 04-05-2022 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
For Appellant(s) Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, AOR
Ms. Hardeep Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Rohini Prasad Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Mishra. Adv.
Mr. Shiv Ram Pandey. Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. James P. Thomas, AOR
Mr. Prashant Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Partha Sil, AOR
Mr Tavish Bhushan Prasad, Advocate
Ms. Surabhi Galleria, Advocate
Ms. Ondrilla Sen, Advocate
6
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are dismissed and Contempt Petition is closed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (PREETHI T.C.) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)