KAIKHOSROU (CHICK) KAVASJI FRAMJI versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 15-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
KAIKHOSROU (CHICK) KAVASJI FRAMJI
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5574 of 2009)
MARCH 15, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
1971: ss. 4(1) and 4(2)(b)(ii) – Issue of notice to show cause against
order of eviction – Summary remedy of the State qua person in
possession of the land – On facts, predecessor of the appellants
leased their property to the Government twice – Said land was
requisitioned, derequisitioned and thereafter again requisitioned –
Issuance of notice by Estate Officer u/ss. 4(1) and 4(2)(b)(ii), to the
appellants, treating them to be unauthorized occupants of the suit
property – Notice upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held:
Appellants raised a bona fide dispute on the question of ownership
of the suit property qua Union of India – A fortiori, in such case,
Estate Officer has no jurisdiction to invoke the powers u/s. 4 by
resorting to a summary procedure prescribed in the Act by sending
a notice u/s. 4 for appellant’s eviction from the suit property – Facts
and the documents establish that there exists a bona fide long
standing dispute as to who is the owner of the suit property-
appellants or Union of India – Union of India itself stated in this
Court in earlier round of litigation that they would seek
dispossession of the appellants from the property in accordance
with law and, if need be, by filing civil suit in the civil court, however,
the same was not resorted to – Respondents cannot now be permitted
to go back from their statement and take recourse to a remedy of
summary procedure under the Act, which is otherwise not available
to them – Effect of quashing the resumption notice issued by the
respondents by the High Court in relation to the suit property was
that Union of India was not entitled to resort to any kind of summary
remedy to evict the appellants from the suit property – Civil court
alone could try and decide – Thus, the notice issued by the Estate
Officer is quashed.
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 222
222
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
223
Precedent: Binding effect of – Reading a decision to find out
ratio decidendi – Three Judge Bench decisions – Judgment authored
by one judge, and the other two judges concurred with the said
view and the reasoning – Two concurring judges also supplemented
their individual concurring reasoning on the same lines on which
the lead judge expressed his view – No dissent inter se judges on
any issue – Held: Is a law by majority and thus, a law laid down by
the Court u/Art. 141 – Constitution of India – Art. 141.
Doctrines/Principles: Principle of merger – Applicability of
–  Held: For merger to operate, the superior court must go into the
merits of the issues decided by the subordinate court and record
findings on its merits – If this is not done by the superior court, a
plea of merger has no application in such a case and the order of
subordinate court would continue to hold the field – On facts, this
Court while disposing of the appeals by its order did not go into the
merits of the various contentions which were decided by the High
Court in its order and disposed of the appeal on the statement made
by the respondents that they would take recourse to the remedy of
the civil court by filing a civil suit – Thus, the principle of merger
would not operate.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The submission of the counsel for the
respondent that the view expressed by A.P. Sen J. in Paras 86-
87 in Express Newspaper case could at best be regarded as his
own view but not the view of the Court by majority because other
two Judges (E.S. Venkataramiah J. and R.B. Mishra J.) did not
express any opinion on this question, thus, this Court should not
place any reliance on the statement of law laid down in Paras 86-
87, cannot be accepted. [Paras 51-52][240-B, C]
1.2 Keeping in view, the reasoning of Lord Esher M.R. in
the Guardian’s case when the statement of law laid down in
Express Newspaper decision is examined, the reasoning of A.P.
Sen J. contained in Para 86-87 is the law laid down on behalf of all
the three Judges. It is a law by majority and is thus, a law laid
down by the Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. It is for
the reasons that though the lead judgment was authored by A.P.
Sen J., the other two Judges concurred with the view and the
KAIKHOSROU (CHICK) KAVASJI FRAMJI v. UOI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[201

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