Petitioner: Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh
Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Date of Judgement: January 03, 1972
Citation: (1989) 2 SCC 505
Civil Appeal No: 165166 of 1989.
Bench / Coram: Venkatachalliah, M.N. (J).
Constitution of India, 1950
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
The Technology Development Board Act, 1995
Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973
Raja Virendra Shah JU Deo vs. State of U.P.
Maktul vs. Manbhari
Ram Lagan Singh vs. Ram Pyare
Chandra Bhushan Mishra vs. Jayatri Devi
Bai Bai vs. Mahadu Maruti
Ratanlal Saligram vs. Nathulal Pankarji Nam Deo
Abdul Gani vs. Devilal
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that a lessor has no right to resume possession of the property by extra-judicial methods such as use of force from a lessee. The lessor is not authorised to use extra-judicial methods to gain possession of the Property.
It is held that the possession of a lessee, even after the expiry or its earlier termination is juridical possession and forcible dispossession is prohibited. Only way available for possession is to follow due course of law.
“A lessor, with the best of title, has no right to resume possession extra-judicially by use of force, from a lessee, even after the expiry or earlier termination of the lease by forfeiture or otherwise. The use of the expression “re-entry” in the lease deed does not authorise extra-judicial methods to resume possession.”
“Under law, the possession of a lessee, even after the expiry or its earlier termination is juridical possession and forcible dispossession is prohibited; a lessee cannot be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. In the present case, the fact that the lessor is the State does not place it in any higher or better position.”
“On the contrary, it is under an additional inhibition stemming from the requirement that all actions of Government and governmental authorities should have a “legal pedigree”.
Drafted by – Abhijit Mishra