State Of West Bengal vs Sheo Shankar Jaiswal on 12 November, 2024

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

State Of West Bengal vs Sheo Shankar Jaiswal on 12 November, 2024

Bench: Surya Kant

                                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.10779/2016

                      STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.                    APPELLANTS

                                                    VERSUS


                      SHEO SHANKAR JAISWAL & ORS.                    RESPONDENTS
                                                    WITH

                                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.10782/2016

                      STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.                  APPELLANTS

                                                Versus

                      SABITA RANI MAJILYA AND ORS.                   RESPONDENTS

                                               O R D E R

1. These two civil appeals are at the instance of the State of West Bengal and its Authorities, questioning the judgment dated 14.06.2011 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta holding that the Thika Controller did not have the jurisdiction under the Calcutta Thika and other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 (in short, the “1981 Act”) for determination of rights of a tenant upon deposit of rent etc. The Division Bench has further held that such a jurisdiction came to be vested in Thika Controller only after the 1981 Act was repealed and a new enactment, namely, West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 (in short, the “2001 Signature Not Verified Act”) came into force.

Digitally signed by

ARJUN BISHT Date: 2024.11.14 16:21:09 IST

2. The aforesaid finding of the High Court was with Reason: reference to the claim of respondent no.5 (M/s. Dass Paints 1 Manufacturing Company), to retain the possession of the premises under its Thika tenancy rights. The High Court upheld such rights in favour of respondent no.5, giving rise to these appeals.

3. As soon as the appeals were taken up for hearing, Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 states that the tenant, namely, respondent no.5 (M/s. Dass Paints Manufacturing Company) has already vacated the premises. He has also handed over a proof thereof to Ms. Astha Sharma, learned counsel for the State of West Bengal. Though, the learned State counsel rightly seeks time to verify the aforesaid factum, however, it seems to us that we need not to defer the disposal of these appeals, in view of the categorical stand taken by Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee that respondent no.5 has already vacated the subject-premises and shifted to a new premises.

4. Faced with this, learned State counsel submits that the view taken by the High Court to the effect that the Thika Controller does not have any jurisdiction to determine inter se rights under the 1981 Act or that such a jurisdiction came to be vested only when the 2001 Act was introduced, is legally untenable.

5. In view of the fact that the parties claiming rights under the 1981 Act are no longer contesting against each other in light of the subsequent event, namely, that the tenant has vacated the premises, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 14.06.2011 for the limited 2 purpose that it shall not be taken as a precedent for deciding the similar controversies.

6. In view of the fact that the tenant has already vacated the premises and the impugned judgment stands set aside, respondent nos.1 to 4 shall be at liberty to utilize the property in accordance with law.

7. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

...................J. (SURYA KANT) ...................J. (UJJAL BHUYAN) New Delhi;

November 12, 2024




                                   3
ITEM NO.7                COURT NO.3                  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).10779/2016

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.                          Appellant(s)

                                  VERSUS

SHEO SHANKAR JAISWAL & ORS.                          Respondent(s)

WITH
C.A. No.10782/2016 (XVI)

Date : 12-11-2024 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Appellant(s) Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv.

Ms. Panistha Bhatt, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv.

Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv.

Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv.

Ms. Miranda Solaman, Adv.

Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv.

Mr. Manoj Wad, Adv.

Ms. Swati Arya, Adv.

Ms. Akriti Arya, Adv.

M/s. J S Wad And Co, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.

2. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ARJUN BISHT)                                   (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(signed order is placed on the file) 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Supreme Court - Daily Orders