SHEELA JAWARLAL NAGORI & ANR. versus KANTILAL NATHMAL BALDOTA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 795 · Decided: 25-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 3 S.C.R. 795 
SHEELA JAWARLAL NAGORI & ANR. 
v. 
KANTILAL NATHMAL BALDOTA & ORS. 
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 36518 of 2013) 
MARCH 25, 2014 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND 
MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882: Eviction 
decree by trial court, upheld by appellate court - Plea of tenant C 
that the suit property was acquired by the Municipal 
Corporation for the purpose of a primary school and the Land 
Acquisition Officer had passed an award and, therefore, the 
landlord was divested of his right, title and interest in the suit 
property after the land acquisition proceedings and thus suit 
for eviction of tenant was not maintainable - High Court noted D 
that there was no material to suggest that the Municipal 
Corporation had taken possession of the suit property from 
the landlord and on the contrary, the Corporation had 
sanctioned a development plan submitted by the landlord in 
respect of the suit property - Held: s. 16 of the Land Acquisition 
E 
Act, 1894 enables the acquiring authority to take possession 
of acquired land and when that is taken, it would be free from 
all encumbrances - In the absence of possession of the suit 
property being taken by Corporation, the plea by the tenant 
cannot be accepted that the landlord was divested of his right, 
title or interest in the suit property - The tenant continued to 
pay rent to the landlord even though according to the tenant 
the landlord had no concern with the suit property after the 
award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer - The stand 
F 
of the tenant was, therefore, self-defeating - Tenant was liable 
G 
to be evicted. 
UNDERTAKING: Eviction decree - Request by tenant for 
time to vacate the premises - Granted on condition of filing 
795 
H 
796 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 
A undertaking - Non-filing of undertaking - Held: Amounts to 
flagrant disobedience and undermines the authority of the 
High Court - High Court advised to consider having the tenant 
first file an undertaking and placed on record before granting 
any interim order after dismissal of the tenant's petition. 
B 
The respondent-landlord filed a suit for eviction 
which was decreed and upheld by the first appellate 
court. The appellant-tenant filed a writ petition before the 
High Court on the ground that the suit property was 
acquired by the Pune Municipal Corporation for the 
C purpose of a primary school and the Land Acquisition 
Officer had passed an award and, therefore, the landlord 
was divested of his right, title and interest in the suit 
property after the land acquisition proceedings and 
therefore a suit for eviction of the tenant was not 
maintainable. The High Court noted that there was no 
D material on record to suggest that the Pune Municipal 
Corporation had taken possession of the suit property 
from the landlord and that to the contrary, the Corporation 
had sanctioned a development plan submitted by the 
landlord in respect of the suit property. Aggrieved, the 
E tenant filed instant SLP. 
Dismissing the SLP, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
enables the acquiring authority to take possession of 
acquired land and when that is taken, it would be free 
F from all encumbrances. Therefore, on a plain reading of 
the provision, in the absence of possession of the suit 
property being taken by the Corporation, the contention 
for the tenant cannot be accepted that the landlord was 
divested of his right, title or interest in the suit property. 
G The tenant continued to pay rent to the landlord even 
though according to the tenant the landlord had no 
concern with the suit property after the award was 
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The stand of the 
tenant was, therefore, self-defeating. [Paras 12, 13] [800· 
H C, E-G] 
SHEELA JAWARLAL NAGORI & ANR. v. KANTILAL 
797 
NATHMAL BALDOTA & ORS. 
2. The tenants had the benefit of an interim order A 
passed by the High Court staying the execution of the 
decree against them as well as a stay of operation of the 
judgments of the trial court and the appellate Court. On the 
dismissal of the proceedings by the High Court, the tenants 
applied for continuation of the interim order for a period of 
B 
12 weeks. The appellants stated that he would file usual 
undertaking to the effectthat they would neither create third 
party interests nor part with possession and would hand 
over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises 
to th

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