LAXMI RAM PAWAR versus SITABAI BALU DHOTRE & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 185 · Decided: 01-12-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 185 
LAXMI RAM PAWAR 
v. 
SITABAI BALU DHOTRE & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2789 of 2005) 
DECEMBER 1, 2010 
~ 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Slum areas (Improvement, Clearance and 
Redevelopment) Act, 1971: 
ss. 4 and 2(e)(v) - 'Slum area' - 'Occupier'- 'Trespasser' 
- HELD: 'Occupier' as defined in Clause (v) of s.2(e) includes 
any person who is liable to pay to the owner damages for use 
and occupation of any land or building and would take within 
A 
B 
c 
its fold and sweep a trespasser since such person is not only 0 
liable for damages for an act of trespass, but also liable to 
pay damages for use and occupation of land or building 
trespassed by him - It is immaterial whether damages for use 
and occupation are, in fact, claimed or not. 
ss. 4, 2(e)(v) and 22(1 )(a) - 'Slum area' - 'Occupier' - Suit 
E 
for eviction of trespasser - Prior permission of competent 
authority - HELD: Before initiation of any suit or proceedings 
for eviction of a trespasser who is 'occupier' within the meaning 
of s.2(e)(v), the written permission of the Competent Authority 
uls 22(1)(a) is mandatorily required - In the instant case, 
F 
though the 'occupier' is a trespasser, but the suit for her 
eviction was not maintainable for want of written permission 
of the competent Authority and was rightly dismissed by the 
trial court. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Trespass' - 'Trespasser' - Connotation of. 
Plaintiff-respondent no. 1 filed a suit against the 
185 
G 
H 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A defendant-appellant and respondent no. 2, the Executive 
Engineer of the State Electricity Board, for declaration, 
possession and permanent injunction in respect of a 
room admeasuring 8' x 10' (the subject room) situate in 
the city of Pune. Her case was that she constructed the 
B subject room in 1987, got electricity connection in her 
name, was paying taxes to the Municipal Corporation and 
had the photopass in her name; that she permitted her 
friend, the appellant, to stay temporarily in the subject 
room and when she was asked to vacate it, she refused 
c denying the right of the plaintiff. It was stated that the 
defendant was neither a tenant nor a licensee but a 
trespasser and had no right to remain in possession of 
the subject room. The defendant-appellant contested the 
suit stating that she had the photopass for the subject 
0 room. She denied the room to have been constructed in 
1987 and her status of a trespasser. She claimed that the 
subject room was situate in the slum area declared under 
the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance 
and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and the suit was not 
maintainable without the written permission of the 
E Competent Authority in view of the prohibition contained 
in s. 22(1 )(a) of the Act. The trial court accepted the title 
of the plaintiff over the subject room, but dismissed the 
suit holding that the suit without permission of the 
Competent Authority was not maintainable. On plaintiff's 
F appeal, the first appellate court decreed the suit holding 
that as the defendant was a trespasser, the permission 
of the Competent Authority was not necessary. The 
second appeal of the defendant having been dismissed 
G 
H 
by the High Court in limine, she filed the appeal. 
The question for consideration before the Court 
was: "is a trespasser covered by the definition of 
'occupier' in s. 2(e)(v) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas 
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971" 
LAXMI RAM PAWAR v. SITABAI BALU DHOTRE & 
187 
ANR. 
and if yes, "whether for his eviction from the land or A 
building in a declared slum area, the written permission 
of the Competent Authority uls 22(1)(a) of the 1971 Act is 
mandatorily required." 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 
1.1 A 'trespass' is an unlawful interference with one's 
person, property or rights. With reference to property, it 
B 
is a wrongful invasion of another's possession. [para 10] c 
[194-F-G] 
Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition (West Publishing 
Company}, pages 108 and 115; Black's Law Dictionary 
(Sixth Edition), 1990, page 1504; Halsbury's Laws of England; 
0 
Volume 45 (Fourth Edition), page 631 - referred to. 
1.2 The definition of 'occupier' in s. 2(e) of the 
Maharashtra Slum areas (Improvement, Clearance and 
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 is not exhaustive but 
inclusive. Clause (v) that reads, ·occupier', includes 'any 
E 
person who is liable to pay to the owne

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