Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)Ram Rattan And Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 November, 1976
9. This proposition was also accepted by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Rattan's case, supra. The Division Bench comprising of three learned Judges held that a true owner has every right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser while he is in the act or process of trespassing but this right is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances, the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies under the law. In the present case, we may point out that there was no question of the plaintiff entering upon the premises as a trespasser at all, as she had entered into the possession of the restaurant business and the premises where it was conducted as a licensee and in due course of law. Thus, defendant 3 was not entitled to dispossess the plaintiff unlawfully and behind her back as has been done by him in the present case. It was pointed out by Mr. Tarkunde that some of the observations referred to above were in connection with a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 or analogous provisions in the earlier Specific Relief Act, 1877. To our mind, this makes no difference in this case as the suit has been filed only a few weeks of the plaintiff being unlawfully deprived of possession of the said business and the premises and much before the period of six months expired. In view of the aforesaid conclusions arrived at by us, we do not propose to consider the question whether the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant 3 amounted to a licence or a sub-lease".
Puran Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 1975
Their Lordships also referred to an earlier decision in the case of Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab. Their Lordships also held that the right of private defence is available to a person in possession if he is dispossessed by use offeree or is attempted to be so dispossessed.
Patil Exhibitors (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore on 2 September, 1985
3. It has restrained forcible dispossession. It has been contended by the petitioner's Counsel that the present respondent was a licensee. His
licence came to an end and therefore he had no right to remain in possession. So subsequent possession was not lawful one. Therefore, the applicant-revision petitioner was entitled to take possession and to oust the plaintiff from possession. Learned Counsel contended that the order granted by the Trial Court, as such, is without jurisdiction and illegal. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner made a reference to a Division Bench's decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Patil Exhibitors Private Limited v Corporation of the City of Bangalore.
Lallu Yeshwant Singh vs Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors on 29 November, 1967
"It is well-settled law in this country that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by
the owner of the property except by recourse to law. If any authority were needed for the proposition, we could refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Lallu Yeshwant Singh v Rao Jagdish Singh, .
The Midnapur Zamindary Company Ltd. vs Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy on 7 April, 1924
This Court in that judgment cited with approval the well-known passage from the leading Privy Council case of Midnapur Zamindary Company Limited v Naresh Narayan Roy, 51 IA 293 at p. 299 : AIR 1924 PC 144, where it has been observed at P. 208 of SCR : at P. 622 of AIR:
Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead), By His Lrs. vs Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao on 9 August, 1989
In this case i.e., in the case of Krishna Ram Mahale, supra, the licensee was dispossessed illegally by the true owner and in that context their Lordships opined that the licensee could not be dispossessed except in accordance with law.
1