1987 JTR(SC) 988
1988 AIR(SC) 514 ; 1988 1 CurCC(SC) 144 ; 1988 34 DLT 70 ; 1987 4 JT 727 ; 1988 1 RCR(Rent) 434 ; 1987 2 Scale 1461 ; 1988 1 SCC 364 ; 1988 1 UJ 372 ; 1988 KHC 879
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.
Ram Singh etc., Appellants
Versus
Ajay Chawala, Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2300-02 of 1984, D/- 16-12-1987.
Act Referred :CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.9
(A) The Civil Procedure Code, Section 9, confers jurisdiction on the Civil Court to entertain suits relating to possession and eviction of property. In the present case, the applicability of the said provision was required to be examined on the basis of the title of the respondent as the owner of the premises by succession and the allegation that the appellants were in unauthorized occupation. The High Court, while exercising its powers under this provision, determined that the subject premises could only be decreed for eviction by the Civil Court based on the finding of the appellants being unauthorized occupants.
(B) The key legal principles include that a Civil Court has jurisdiction to pass decrees for eviction only where the plaintiff proves title to the property and unauthorized occupation by the defendant. The appellate court generally should not interfere with findings of fact unless there is a substantial question of law. The remedy for eviction lies exclusively in the Civil Court once the prerequisites of title and unauthorized possession are satisfied.
Facts of the case:
The respondent succeeded to the title of certain premises. The appellants were in occupation of the premises without authorization. The appellants contended that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to pass an eviction decree.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the respondent was the owner of the premises by succession and that the appellants were in unauthorized occupation. It held that these findings raised no substantial question of law and that the Civil Court had exclusive jurisdiction to pass an order for eviction.
Issues:
Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain an eviction petition in a case where the title of the respondent is established and the appellants are in unauthorized occupation.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where the respondent is the owner of the premises by succession and the appellants are in unauthorized occupation, a Civil Court has jurisdiction to order eviction, and an appellate court will not interfere with such findings of fact unless there is a substantial question of law.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed with costs, and the appellants are directed to vacate the premises and pay rent and arrears.
(A) The Civil Procedure Code, Section 9, confers jurisdiction on the Civil Court to entertain suits relating to possession and eviction of property. In the present case, the applicability of the said provision was required to be examined on the basis of the title of the respondent as the owner of the premises by succession and the allegation that the appellants were in unauthorized occupation. The High Court, while exercising its powers under this provision, determined that the subject premises could only be decreed for eviction by the Civil Court based on the finding of the appellants being unauthorized occupants.
(B) The key legal principles include that a Civil Court has jurisdiction to pass decrees for eviction only where the plaintiff proves title to the property and unauthorized occupation by the defendant. The appellate court generally should not interfere with findings of fact unless there is a substantial question of law. The remedy for eviction lies exclusively in the Civil Court once the prerequisites of title and unauthorized possession are satisfied.
Facts of the case:
The respondent succeeded to the title of certain premises. The appellants were in occupation of the premises without authorization. The appellants contended that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to pass an eviction decree.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the respondent was the owner of the premises by succession and that the appellants were in unauthorized occupation. It held that these findings raised no substantial question of law and that the Civil Court had exclusive jurisdiction to pass an order for eviction.
Issues:
Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain an eviction petition in a case where the title of the respondent is established and the appellants are in unauthorized occupation.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where the respondent is the owner of the premises by succession and the appellants are in unauthorized occupation, a Civil Court has jurisdiction to order eviction, and an appellate court will not interfere with such findings of fact unless there is a substantial question of law.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed with costs, and the appellants are directed to vacate the premises and pay rent and arrears.
C.M.NAYAR, GOBINDA MUKHOTY, S.K.VERMA, S.N.KACKAR
Judgement
JUDGMENT :- These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the Second Appeal on the ground that there was no substantial question of law. The only plea on behalf of the appellants was that they were claiming sub-tenancy from Shri Bhure in respect of the different portions of the premises in question. The question whether Civil Court had jurisdiction or not in the facts of this case was a substantial question of law. Therefore, it was submitted that the High Court committed an error of law in not allowing the appeal before it. We are unable to accept this contention. It is clear and established that the respondent is the owner of the premises in question by succession. There is no dispute as to his title. The contention of the respondent was that the appellants were in unauthorised occupation. The two Courts on facts have upheld that contention. The High Court refused to interfere with that finding of fact. If these facts i.e. to say the respondent is the owner of the premises and the appellants are in unauthorised occupation of the premises then only the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to order eviction of the premises in question and no other court. On such a plea and on such finding the respondent could not have gone to any court but the Civil Court for eviction. In that view of the matter, we find no ground to interfere with the orders of the High Court. Our attention was drawn on certain decisions of this Court viz. Babulal Bhuramal v. Nandram Shivram, 1959 SCR 367; Om Prakash Gupta v. Dr. Rattan Singh, (1964) 1 SCR 259 at p. 264 and Dipak Banerjee v. Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty, AIR 1987 SC 2055.
2. These cases dealt with entirely different contexts and observations made therein are not material. In the aforesaid view of the matter there is no ground to interfere with the order of the High Court. These appeals therefore fail and are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order of costs.
3. The appellants are given time to vacate the premises in question till 30-6-88 upon filing the following usual undertaking within four weeks from today. If the rooms are locked, keys will be handed over at the time of delivery of the possession to the Trial Court.
1. That the Appellants will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent on or before 30-6-88 from today.
2. That the Appellants will pay to respondent future compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month before 10th of every month.
3. That the Appellants will pay to the respondent arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today.
4. That the Appellants will not induct any other person in the suit premises.
4. It is further directed that in default of compliance with any one or more of these conditions or if the undertaking is not filed as required within the stipulated time, the decree shall become executable forthwith.
Appeals dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1988 SC 514=(1988) 1 U.J. (SC) 372=(1988) 1 SCC 364.