Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10338/2018
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No(s). 36887/2016)
SHRI PEAREY LAL(DEAD) NOW REPRESENTED BY LRS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SHRI JIA LAL-PUJARI (DEAD)
NOW REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10339-10341/2018
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No(s). 2660-2662/2018 )
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals are filed against the common judgment dated
04.08.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Regular Second
Appeals which were preferred by the appellant(s) herein. For the
sake of convenience we take note of the facts from the appeal
arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.36887 of 2016.
The dispute pertains to the sweet shop which the appellant(s)
is having in the precinct of Kalkaji Mandir, Kalkaji,Delhi. This
shop comprises of two rooms and two varandas. The appellant had
filed Suit No.386 of 1976 titled as �Pearey Lal Vs. Ram Nath�
seeking declaration to the effect that he is holding leasehold
rights in the aforesaid shop and, therefore, he is a protected
tenant. He had also claimed relief of permanent injunction seeking
2
restraint against the defendant(s)(respondent(s) herein) from
dispossessing the appellant(s) from the shop (hereinafter referred
to as 'the suit premises'). It was pleaded in the plaint filed by
the appellant(s) that he was inducted as tenant sometime in the
year 1963 and had been paying rent to baridars. Ad-interim
injunction was granted to the appellant(s) restraining the
respondent(s) from dispossessing the appellant(s) which was made
absolute till the disposal of the suit. The defendant(s) had taken
the plea that the appellant(s) was only a licensee in the suit
premises and had no right to stay therein. Various issues were
settled on which evidence was led by both the parties. The original
plaintiff namely Pearey Lal passed away on 27.05.1989 during the
pendency of the suit and his legal representatives including Radhey
Shyam Sharma were brought on record.
After arguments the Trial Court passed the judgment dated
31.01.2012 dismissing the suit categorically recording a finding
that the appellant(s) was only a licensee and not a lessee.
However, it was also found as a fact that the appellant(s) was in
settled possession of the suit premises. The injunction was refused
only on the ground that the appellant(s) had not filed any site
plan. Regular First Appeal was filed by the appellant. Cross
objections were also filed by the legal representatives of the
defendant no.10. Other defendants had accepted the judgment of the
Trial Court and did not file any appeal. Regular First Appeal as
well as cross objections were dismissed by the learned Additional
District Judge vide judgment dated 01.04.2013. Regular Second
3
Appeal there-against was preferred by the appellant(s) which has
been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 04.08.2016.
Mr. C.A. Sundram, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant(s), made one main submission on the basis of facts which
have been established before the Trial Court and affirmed by the
Additional District Judge as well as by the High Court. He accepted
the position that the appellant is only a licensee. However, the
submission was that the finding of fact was also that the appellant
was in possession of the suit premises right from the year 1963. On
this basis, he argued that even as a licensee the appellant could
not have been dispossessed without the process of law. This
proposition has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the
respondent(s).
Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed holding that the
appellant(s) is a licensee, decree of injunction is passed in
favour of the appellant to the extent that the appellant shall not
be dispossessed without the process of law meaning thereby the
respondent(s) shall be permitted to recourse of legal proceedings
in this behalf. We may record that as and when such a suit is filed
the same shall be adjudicated on its own merits. No order as to
costs.
......................J.
[A.K. SIKRI]
......................J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 03, 2018.
4
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36887/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-08-2016
in RSA No. 92/2013 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
SHRI PEAREY LAL(DEAD) NOW REPRESENTED BY LRS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SHRI JIA LAL-PUJARI (DEAD)
NOW REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS & ORS. Respondent(s)
I.A. NO. 1/2016-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING
I.A. NO. 3/2017- PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON. )
WITH
SLP(C) No. 2660-2662/2018 (XIV)
Date : 03-10-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. C.A. Sundram, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Debesh Panda, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Anshul Goyal, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
Mr. Debesh Panda, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR
Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Sinha Shrey Nikhilesh, Adv.
Mr. Anil Nauriv, Adv.
Ms. Sumita Hazarika, AOR
Mr. Prabhas Chandra, Adv.
Ms. Ipsita Behura, Adv.
Mr. Harish Bhardwaj
Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj
Caveator-in-person
5
Mr. Dheeraj Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Sunita Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Satyendra Kumar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are partly allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(ASHWANI THAKUR) (RAJINDER KAUR)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
