AJIT CHOPRA versus SADHU RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 340 · Decided: 02-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AJIT CHOPRA 
v. 
SADHU RAM AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 2, 1999 
B 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
Sections I I and 47-Eviction decree in rent control proceedings-
C Decree not executed and time barred-Suit based on title filed within I 2 
years of eviction proceedings attaining finality-Tenant claiming adverse 
possession-Commencement of adverse possession-When-Held, adverse 
possession starts when eviction proceedings attained finality-Throughout 
the rent control proceedings _the relationship as tenant continues-Whether 
D second suit maintainable-Held, suit not based on eviction decree and title 
in property not extinguished by adverse possession-Second suit is 
maintainable and not barred by Sections I I or 47-East Punjab Urban Rent 
Restriction Act, I 949. 
'8' filed eviction petition against respondent-defendant under Section 
E 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which was dismissed 
by Rent Controller on the ground that there was no relationship oflandlord 
and tenant between parties. B preferred appeal and during its pendency B 
sold the property to Con 18.6.1957. Appeal was allowed and revision preferred 
by respondent was dismissed by high Court on 19.9.1958 holding that 
respondent was tenant. C did not execute eviction order and allowed respondent 
F to continue as tenant. C filed fresh eviction petition against respondent under 
the said Act in which respondent filed counter affidavit contending that he 
was not tenant and had acquired title by adverse possession. Thereafter C 
filed suit on 5.8.1970 for possession based on title which was contested by 
respondent by claiming adverse possession. Trial court and first appellate court 
G decreed eviction and rejected plea of adverse possession on the ground that 
suit was filed within 12 years from 19.9.1958 when earlier proceedings had 
become final. Second Appeal, filed by respondent was allowed by High Court 
on the ground that suit for possession stood barred by Section 47 of the Code 
of Civil Procedure since all matters concerning execution, satisfaction ·and 
discharge of previous suit were to be agitated in execution proceedings and 
H 
340 
-
-
AJIT CHOPRA v. SADHU RAM 
341 
not by separate suit. Hence, this appeal by legal representative of C. 
A 
The appellant contended that suit was not in the nature of execution of 
earlier order of eviction and was not barred; that suit was based upon denial 
of title of plaintiff by respondent in second eviction petition which gave fresh 
cause of action; and that respondent could not claim adverse possession as 
suit was filed within 12 years from the date on which earlier eviction case B 
had become final. 
The respondent contended that suit was not maintainable in view of 
Sec\ion 47 C.P.C.; that adverse possession started from the date of purchase 
by plaintiff C as he did not get himself impleaded in first eviction case; and C 
that in any event, limitation started from 30.9.1957 when Rent Appellate 
Authority ordered eviction in the earlier case and therefore, suit was barred 
by time. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Rent Appellate Authority declared that there was in fact, D 
a relationship oflandlord and tenant between the parties and ordered eviction 
on 30.9.1957. The said declaration as to the nature of the relationship between 
B and the respondent would be effective from the date of filing of the eviction 
case on 19.7.1955 by B. Hence, there could not be any adverse possession 
from 19.7.1955 merely because the respondent denied his relationship as E . 
tenant from 1955 in the first eviction case. The relationship as tenant 
continues throughout the proceedings before the Rent Controller, then during 
. the pendency of the appeal and till the statutory revision under the Act is 
disposed of. The relationship does not go on oscillating during the pendency 
,. of the proceedings depending upon whether eviction is granted or not in 
between. Therefore, the relationship oflandlord and tenant did not come to an F 
end on 30.9.1957 when the landlord's appeal was allowed by the appellate 
authority and such relationship continued during the pendency of the tenant's 
statutory revision till 19.9.1958. Therefore, the respondent was a tenant upto 
19.9.1958 when the revision was disposed of and, that thereafter the 
respondent was a licensee for a period of 3 months upto 19.12.1958. The G 
adverse possession, if any, could never have th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.