PRAFUL MANOHAR RELE versus SMT. KRISHNABAI NARAYAN GHOSALKAR & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 44 · Decided: 03-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 44 
PRAFUL MANOHAR RELE 
v. 
SMT. KRISHNABAI NARAYAN GHOSALKAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2014) 
JANUARY 3, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN JJ.] 
Leave and licence: 
c 
Licence - Suit for possession stating that defendants-
respondents were gratuitous licensees - Alternative plea of 
eviction on ground of bona fide need - Held: Alternative plea 
would be redundant if plaintiff's case of defendants being 
gratuitous licensees was accepted by court -
First appellate 
0 
court accepted plaintiff's case that defendants were in 
occupation as licensees and not as tenants -
High Court has 
not set aside that finding of fact on its merits and dismissed 
the suit simply because the plea of tenancy was, in its opinion, 
contradictory to the plea of licence set up in earlier part of 
plaint -
That was not a proper approach or course to follow 
E -
Judgment of High Court set aside and that of first appellate 
court restored. 
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: 
F 
Plea of termination of licence and alternatively eviction 
on ground of bona fide need - Held: Plaintiff-appellant had 
set up a specific case that defendants were occupying the suit 
premises as licensees and licence had been validly 
terminated -
In reply to the notice, case of defendants was 
G that they were in occupation of suit premises not as licensees 
but as tenants ~ Plaintiff was, therefore, entitled on that basis 
alone to ask for an alternative relief of a decree for eviction 
on grounds permissible under Rent Act. 
H 
44 
PRAFUL MANOHAR RELE v. KRISHNABAI NARAYAN 45 
GHOSALKAR 
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession against the 
A 
defendants-respondents on the ground that they were 
licensees occupying the premises gratuitously. It was the 
case of the plaintiff that the predecessor-in-interest of the 
defendants was allowed to occupy the suit premises as 
a gratuitous licensee on humanitarian considerations. 
B 
After his demise, the defendants were served with a 
notice terminating the licence and asking them to hand 
over the possession of the suit premises, but they 
~ refused to vacate and falsely claimed to be tenants. It was 
alternatively urged that the plaintiff was entitled to c 
vacation of the premises, inter a/ia, on the ground of bona 
fide personal need. In the written statement filed by the 
defendants they stuck to their version that the suit 
property was occupied by their predecessor-in-interest 
as a tenant and upon his demise they too were in 
0 
occupation of the same as tenants. The trial court 
dismissed the suit. But, the first appellate court decreed 
the suit. However, the High Court allowed the second 
appeal of the defendants-respondents holding that the 
plaintiff's case that the predecessor-in-interest of the 
E 
defendants was a gratuitous licensee was incompatible 
with the plea that he was a tenant and, therefore, could 
be evicted under the Rent Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Whether or not the defendants were 
licensees as alleged by the plaintiff was essentially a 
question of fact and had to be answered on the basis of 
F 
the evidence on record which the first appellate court had 
reappraised to hold that the defendants were let into the 
G 
suit property by the plaintiff on humanitarian grounds and . 
as gratuitous licensees, and licence stood validly 
terminated. The defence of the defendants-respondents 
that they were occupying the premises as tenants was 
held by the first appellate court not proved. The High 
H 
46 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A Court could not have interfered with that finding of fact. 
[Para 10] (52-A-D, G] 
1.2. The alternative plea would be redundant if the 
plaintiff's case of the defendants being gratuitous 
8 licensees was accepted by the court. That is precisely 
what had happened in the instant case. The first appellate 
court accepted the plaintiff's case that defendants were 
in occupation as licensees and not as tenants. The High 
Court has not set aside that finding of fact on its merits. 
C Without finding fault with the findings recorded by the 
first appellate court on the question of license and its 
termination, the High Court has dismissed the suit simply 
because the plea of tenancy was, in its opinion, 
contradictory to the plea of license set up in the earlier 
part of the plaint. That was not a proper approach or 
D course to follow. Therefore, the order passed by the High 
Court cannot be sustained. (Para 11-12] (5

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