SURINDER PAL KAUR AND ANOTHER versus SATPAL AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 430 · Decided: 13-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2015] 1 S.C.R. 430 
SURINDER PAL KAUR AND ANOTHER 
v. 
SATPAL AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 345 of 2015) 
JANUARY 13, 2015. 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 
- s. 13 - Eviction petition - Allowed by trial court - Dismissf;d 
C by appellate court denying landlord-tenant relationship relying 
on the proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P. C. - High Court in revision 
held that proceedings uls 145 Cr.P.C. can be relied upon in 
rent ce>ntrol proceedings - On appeal, held: The observations 
made in proceedings uls 145 do not bind a Competent Court 
D in a legal proceeding -
Such observation is relevant in 
evidence for a limited purpose - In the present case, the 
proceedings uls 145 do not relate to the relationship of 
landlord and tenant between the parties nor was there finding 
to that effect - Matter remitted to High Court for fresh 
E adjudication - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.145. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court for fresh adjudication, the Court 
HELD: 1. The observations made in the proceedings 
F drawn under Section 145 CrPC do not bind the competent 
court in a legal proceedings initiated before it. A dec;ision 
given under Section 145 CrPC has relevance in evidence 
to show one or more of the following facts: (a) that there 
was a dispute relating to a particular property; (b) that the 
G dispute was between the parties; (c) that such dispute led 
to the passing of a preliminary order under Section 145(1) 
CrPC or an order of attachment issued under Section 
146(1) CrPC; and (d) that the Magfstrate found particular 
party or parties in possession or fictional possession of 
H 
430 
SURINDER PAL KAUR v. SATPAL 
431 
the disputed property. [para 11] [435-B-E] 
Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi 2003 (5) 
Suppl. SCR 98 = 2004 (1) sec 438 - relied on. 
2. In the present case, the orders passed by the 
Magistrate under Section 145 CrPC, and the one passed 
A 
B 
by the revisional authority, arisen out of said 
proceedings, do not at all relate to the relationship of the 
landlord and tenant between the parties, nor was there 
any finding or observation to that effect. What reflects 
from aforesaid orders is that there was dispute between 
C 
two sections of the people as to the nature of the 
premises whether the same were part of Gurudwara or a 
Temple. It is not the case of the respondents that after the 
proceedings under Section 145 CrPC were drawn, they 
deposited rent with the Receiver, or any other office 
D 
bearer of management committee of the temple. [para 13] 
[436-B-D] 
3. The High Court has erred in law in dismissing the 
revision merely for the reason that the property was under 
E 
attachment on the date of filing of the eviction petition 
and the Receiver was appointed in respect of the said 
property. It is nobody's case that the respondents were 
not in possession of property in question as tenants on 
said date. [para 14] [436-D-F] 
F 
Case Law Reference: 
2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 98 
relied on 
para 12 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 345 
of 2015. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2013 of the 
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C. R. No. 
5330 of 2002. 
H 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Neeraj Sharma, S. K. Gupta, Balbir Singh Gupta for the 
Appellants. 
Vivek Sharma, Yash Pal Dhingra for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. Leave granted 
2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order 
dated 7.5.2013, passed by the High Court of Punjab and 
C Haryana in Civil Revision No. 5330 of 2002 (O&M) whereby 
said Court has dismissed the revision. 
3. Briefly stated, the factual matrix of the case is that Rana 
Shiv Gopal Singh and Rani Amarjeet Kaur filed petition under 
Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 
D 1963 (Act 11 of 1973) for ejectment of Krishan Lal from the 
premises in question, i.e., House No. 8603-5, New No. 542, 
Block No. 6, Ambala City. After death of Rana Shiv Gopal 
Singh and Rani Amarjeet Kaur, present appellants were 
substituted as their legal heirs in the proceedings, and after 
E death of Krishan Lal, present respondents were impleaded as 
his legal representatives. 
4. It is pleaded by the appellants that they are landlords of 
House No. 8603-5, New No. 452, Block No. 6, Ambala City, 
F and respondents are their tenants. The monthly tenancy st

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