SANT LAL JAIN versus AVTAR SINGH

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 184 · Decided: 12-03-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Case Allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

SANT LAL iAtN 
v 
AVTAR SINGH 
B 
March 12, 1985 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, AND A. V ARADARAJAN, JJ.] 
East Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949: Section I 3, Grant of licence for 
C 
one year-On eXpiry of period licence revoked-Suit for nzandatory injunction 
filed-Delay infilian of-Whether excusable-Such Suit in effect one for posses-
sion-Suit should be decreed-On terminatio1 of licence-Licencee's possession 
that of a Ires-passer. 
Indian Evidence Act, Section 16. 
D 
Licensee purchased property duri'ng pendency of suit-Jr could set up title 
E 
F 
G 
H 
to proper1y-evictlonfro1n property-Whether per1nissble. 
The appellant had taken a plot of land on lease under a lease-d~cd for 
a term of 10 years for M/s Jain Motors. · At that time he was only a partner 
of M/s Jain Moters but later he became its sole owner. The respondent took 
from the appellant on licence for one year undt:r a deed the suitshed for carry-
ing on wOrk shop business Since he did not vacate the she dafter the expiry of 
the period the appellant treminated the licence and filed the suit for a manda-
tory injunction directing the respondent to vacate the premises. The respon-
dentopposed the suit contending that the appellant sub.Jet to him a plot of land 
and he had raised a new construction thereon and is carrying on work!ihop 
business, and that the relationship between the parties was that of landlord 
and tenant and the suit for mandatory injurict!on was not maintainabl~. 
The trial court dismissed the suit, for mandatory injunction as not 
maintainale. 
On appeal, the Additional District Judg.;: held that the relationship 
between the parties was only on.: of licensor anJ lic;!n'>oe and that suit for 
mandatory injunction was maintainabl~. allowed the appeal decreed the suit 
and directed the respondent to deliver vacant posse~sion of the shed. 
In the second appeal, the respondent filed an application for receiving as 
additional evidence a sale-deed dated 27.8.1979 whereby he claimed to have 
purchased the entire property from its orignial owner. On a finding called for 
\ 
I 
7 
SANT tAt v. AVTAR siNGH 
is~ 
by the High Court, the trial court found 'that the re•pondent had purchased the 
A 
property from its original owner by that sale-deed. The High Court held 
that after the commencement of the tenancy or the licence a tenant or licensee 
who has" pu1chased the property from its original owner cannot be evicted 
from that property on the basis of the lease·or licence. The Second appeal 
was allowed, the judgment and decree of the additional District Judge Was set 
aside and the trial court's decree dismissing the suit was restored. 
Allowing the Appeal, 
HELD: 1. There is no 
m~rger -of the whole property py it original 
owner in favour of the appellant by reason of thl! sale of the entire property by 
the original owner in favour of the respondent or of the licence given by the 
appe1Iant to the respondent which had been revoked prior to the date of the 
suit. The lease in favour ofthe·.i.ppellant continues and under the,Past Punjab 
Rent Restrictions Act 1949 even the t'nan t of a vacant land cannot be evicted 
therefrom except in accordance with the provisions of that Act. l188F-G] 
K.K. Verma & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1954 Bombay 358, 
Milka Singh v. Diana & Ors., AIR 1964 Jammu & Kashmir 99, relied upon. 
2. In the instant case, it has not been shown that the appeilant had 
filed the suit for m1njatory injunctio11 after considerable delay which will 
disentitle him to the discretionary relief. Even if there was some delay, in a 
ca"c of this kind attempt should be made to avoid multiplicity of suits and the 
licensor should not be driven to file another suit with all the attendant delay, 
trouble and expen':ie. [l89E-FJ 
3. The suit is in effect one for possession though couched in the form 
of a suit for mandatory injunction as what would b:; given to the plaintiff in 
case he succeeds in possession of the property to which he may found to be 
entitled. Therefore, the appe11ant should not be denied relief merely because 
he had couched the plaint in the form ofa suit for mandatory injunction. 
• 
-
[!89G] 
4. The respondent was a licensee and he must be deemed to be always 
a licensee. It is not op~n to him; duril1g th.:: subsistl!nc.:: of the licence or in the 
licence or in the suit for recovery of possession of the property instituted after 
revocation of the licence to set up title to the property in himself or anyon~ 
e

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