The Hindu : Supreme Court reverses Madras HC verdict

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Mar 04, 2002

National

National

Supreme Court reverses Madras HC verdict

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI MARCH 3. "If such actions — (as taking forcible possession of tenanted premises by the mighty or powerful landlords) are condoned in a democratic country, nobody would be safe nor the citizens can protect their properties,'' the Supreme Court has cautioned, adding that "law frowns upon such conduct'' and "the court accords legitimacy and legality only to possession taken in due course of law.''

Delivering the judgement, Justice M.B. Shah "strongly deprecated the high-handed action taken by the respondent (a landlord of a premises situated at Anna Salai, Chennai) in taking forcible possession of the premises from a tenant'' (appellant who has been doing the business in the premises for more than 35 years) and directed the respondent (a Tamil Nadu Handloom Cooperative Society) to hand over possession of the premises within one month to the appellant. The respondent was also ordered to pay Rs. 50,000 as costs to the appellant.

"If such actions are condoned, the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution or the legal rights would be given the go-by either by the authority or by rich and influential persons or by musclemen'', the Bench said, stating that "the law of the jungle will prevail and `might would be right' instead of `right being might'.

Setting aside a judgement of the Madras High Court, the Bench, which included Justice B.N. Agrawal decreed the `summary suit' filed by the appellant — tenant for restoration of possession of the said premises under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

On scrutiny of the facts and circumstances, the Bench commented that "this would clearly establish that the appellant (tenant) was in possession of the premises and pending suit (for eviction filed by the landlord-respondent) the tenant was forcibly dispossessed.''

"In such circumstances, if the matter is remanded for reconsideration after a lapse of 15 years — (as was done by the High Court) the whole purpose of `summary suit' from the tenant for action under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act would be frustrated,'' the Bench said adding "that the facts were eloquent and no further evidence was necessary nor anything was required to be re-appreciated.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National