SRI SAMIR SOBHAN SANYAL versus TRACKS TRADE PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 16-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SRI SAMIR SOBHAN SANYAL 
A 
v. 
TRACKS TRADE PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. 
APRIL 16, 1996 
[K. RAlvl.ASWAMY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil pmcedure, 1908/Specific Relief Act, 1963: 
Order 21 Rules 98 and 91}-Section 28-Vnder a lea;·e deed entered into 
between the landlady and the appellant's employe1; appellant put in posses-
C 
sion of the property-Landlady ente1ing into an agreement with some othef 
company for sale of the property-She also filed an application u11der S.28 of 
Specific Act for resci11ding the contract she had entered into with the 
appellant's employei-However appellant not impleaded-Appellant filing an 
application under Order 21 Rules 98 and 99-No order or decree of eviction 
passed against him-However the landlady's suit for possession came to be D 
decreed and appellant dispossessed-Held: Dispossession of appellant unlaw-
ful-Court's giving its acceptance to such a high-handed action depre-
cated-Appellant to be put back in possession within 24 hours-Executing 
Court directed to dispose of the application under S.28 of the Specific Relief 
Act, along with the appellant's application under Order 21 Rules 98 and E 
99--Til/ the adjudication is over appellant to renzain in possession. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7515 of 
1996·Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.7.95 of the Calcutta High F 
Court in C.O./C.R. No. Nil of 1995. 
Gopal Subramaniam, Dr. R.N. Mukherjee, K. Madhava Reddy, R.K. 
Jain, Parag P. Tripalhi, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Ranjit Thomas N. Ganapathy, 
Ms. Sumita Mukherjee, Goodwil lndeevar, Rana Mukherjee, Raj Kr. 
Gupta, H.P. Sharma, Rajesh, Dr. Sumant Bharadwan, Ms. Mridula Ray G 
Bhardwaj, Mrs. I.M. Achari, K. V. Mohan, Sanjiv Sen, S.V. Deshpande ·and 
Pramit Sexena for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
H 
397 
A 
B 
c 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
This case is a classic illustration of the travesty of justice and high-
handedness in the dispossession of a person in possession without due 
process of law. The appellant, arlmittedly, was inducted as a tenant on 
behalf of Mis. India Foils Ltd. into the premises bearing No. 16, May Fair 
Road, Calcutta-19. The property belongs to Mrs. Gertrud Chand 
(hereinafter referred to as 'landlady') who had entered into a lease with 
M/s. Indian Foils Ltd. on March 27, 1969 for the demise of the said 
property to the said company. In furtherance thereof, possession of the 
premises was, admittedly, given to the appellant. The landlady had entered 
into an agreement with the 6th respondent, M/s. Habitat Developers on 
October 17, 1985 for sale of the property for a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs. For 
the enforcement thereof, the 6th respondent filed title suit No. 137 of 1986 
for specific performance in the court of the Second Assistant Judge, 
Alipur. In the written statement filed by the landlady, she had admitted 
thus: 
D 
"One Mr. Sanyal was inducted into the premises by India Foils 
Ltd Consequently, the defendant was not in a position to offer the 
suit property free from encumbrances, but the plaintiff-Company 
despite full knowledge of such encumbrances expressed its desire 
to purchase the property at a consideration price of Rs. 40 lakhs." 
E 
It would thus be seen that in the suit for specific performance, the 
6th respondent was put on notice that the appellant was in possession and 
enjoyment of the demised premises and yet the 6th respondent had entered 
into the agreement subject to the encumbrances. Subsequently; the suit 
came to be decreed for khas possession also which decree became final. 
F 
In spite of the fact that the 6th respondent was aware of the continuance 
in possession and enjoyment of the demised premises by the appellant, no 
steps have been taken either to have him impleaded as a party defendant 
to the suit for specific performance nor a decree personally against him 
was obtained in any other independent proceedings as on date. 
G 
The question, therefore, is whether the appellant can be dispossessed 
in execution of the decree in title suit No. 137 of 1986. When the possession 
of the appellant was sought to be interdicted, admittedly, he filed a petition 
under Order 21, Rules 98 and 99, CPC claiming adjudication of his right 
to remain in possession of the said property. It is his case that his employer 
H 
had agreed to allow him in possession •.ill alternative accommodation is 
·' 
S.S.SANYALv. TRACKS TRADE PV

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