COMMISSIONER, JALANDHAR DIVISION AND ORS. versus MOHAN KRISHAN ABROL AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 722 · Decided: 02-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE

Judgment (excerpt)

•
A 
COMMISSIONER, JALANDHAR DIVISION AND ORS. 
..... 
ft 
v. 
MOHAN KRISHAN ABROL A\/D ANR. 
APRIL 2, 2004 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.H. KJ.PADIA, J.] 
Punjab Public Premises and land (Evictior and Rent Recovery) Act, 
,._ • 
1973-Sections 2(e), 4, 5 and 15-Succession Ac,, 1925-Sections 87, 211, 
c 
213 and 336-Execution of registered will by testatrix-Property bequeathed 
to Government hospital and appointment of execut ?rs-Mutation in favour of 
hospital-Application by Hospital for eviction of a!leged tenant-unauthorized 
occupant-Title suit by tenant claiming that testairix executed lease deed in 
his favour as such· he is tenant and declaration , hat State Government not 
owner of the property-Eviction order passed bv Competent Authority as 
D lease for JO years period not renewed after expi-y and tenant declared an 
unauthorized occupant of the premises-Dismissal o_( appeal against the order-
Meanwhile, title suit decreed holding that on the death of testatrix property 
~ . 
vested in executors and not State as such eviction J. roceedings under 197 3 Act 
not maintainable-However, lower Appellate Coi·rt dismissed the suit-Writ 
Petition and Regular Second Appeal-Writ Petition allowed holding that 
E property vested in executors as such eviction proceeding not maintainable, 
however second appeal dismissed as title suit no' maintainable-On appeal 
Held: The Clause of the Will unequivocally stat~s that testatrix bequeathed 
her bungalow to the Hospital absolutely and fonver, thus Hospital not the 
beneficiary, but full owner and 'public premises' under section 2(e)-On demise 
F of testatrix, property vested in executors who asse ~ted to the legacy in favour 
of hospital--Hence, eviction proceedings mainta.nable under 1973 Act and 
..... 
order of High Court not right in this regard-Further on expiry of lease, 
tenant was in wrongful and illegal occupation of t.1e property as unauthorized 
occupant' thus, Competent Authority right in pl'ssing eviction order under 
1973 Act. 
G 
CK owned certain property. She exec ~ted registered Will and 
bequeathed the property to State Government through the Hospital and 
.....
appointed executors. Property was mutated n favour of the Hospital. 
Jr • 
Hospital filed an application under sections ' and 5 of Punjab Public 
H 
Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Reco,,ery) Act, 1973 before the 
722 
COMMR. JALANDHAR DIVISION v. M.K. ABROL 
723 
Collector for eviction of respondent no. 1 who was allegedly an A 
unauthorized occupant of the property. Respondent no. 1 filed a suit 
claiming title that testatrix had executed a registered lease deed in his 
favour and as such was a tenant and declaration that State Government 
was not the owner of the property. Competent Authority found that 
respondent was a lessee under the lease deed for 10 years which on expiry B 
was not renewed and passed an eviction order against respondent no. I 
declaring him to be unauthorized occupant of the premises. Respondent 
filed an appeal. Commissioner dismissed the same. In the meantime, title 
suit was decreed holding that the respondent was a lessee and entitled to 
maintain the suit; that on the death of testatrix property vested in the 
el(ecutors and not in the State, and as such proceedings under the 1973 C 
Act were not maintainable. Government filed an appeal. Lower Appellate 
Court held that the respondent had no locus standi to bring the title suit; 
and that the executors had assented to the perfection of title in the State 
and as such dismissed the title suit. Aggrieved respondent No. 1 filed writ 
petition and also regular second appeal. High Court held that the Hospital 
was only a beneficiary under clause 2 of the Will and since under section 
211 of the Succession Act, 1925 property vested in executors, eviction 
proceedings under 1973 Act were not maintainable and as such set aside 
the eviction order and allowed the writ petition; however in view of section 
15of1973 Act held that suit filed by the respondent was not maintainable 
D 
and thus, dismissed the second appeal. Hence the present appeals. 
E 
Appellant contended that on the demise of the testatrix, the property 
vested in the executors which was only for the purposes of representation; 
that a bare reading of clause 2 of the Will shows that the said property 
was bequeathed absolutely in favour of the Hospital so that a ward could 
be set up in that hospital in the name of the deceased-husband of the F 
testatrix and the 

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