- (1.) While there is no divergence of opinion as regards status of a former tenant and his possession is juridical and protected by statute, the issue in the contextual facts, however pertains to State Government's obligation to restore possession of the premises requisitioned after termination of the requisition proceedings, namely to the owners or to the tenant/ lessees from whom possession was taken on the date of the order of requisition. Mr. Dipankar Gupta, the learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the appeal has been rather emphatic on his submission that the State has such an obligation. Mr. Venugopal, Mr. R.F. Nariman and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocates, appearing for different respondents, in one tune however sounded a contra note. The High Court negated the submissions as advanced before it that it is the tenant/lessee who is authorised to receive back the possession from the State after the expiry of requisition in the contextual facts and thus the appeal before this Court.
(2.) Incidentally, juridical possession, spoken-off earlier in the paragraph, while is a possession protected by law against wrongful dispossession, but cannot per se always be equated with lawful possession. This has been the clear opinion of this Court in M. C. Chockalingam v. V. Manickavasagam, (1974) 1 SCC 48 : (AIR 1974 SC 104). This Court in paragraph 14 of the report observed :- "Mr. Gupte strenuously submits that 'lawful possession' cannot be divorced from an affirmative, positive legal right to possess the property and since the lease had expired by efflux of time the tenant in this case had no legal right to continue in possession. In the context of Rule 13, we are clearly of opinion that a tenant on the expiry of the lease cannot be said to continue in 'lawful possession' of the property against the wishes of the landlord if such a possession is not otherwise statutorily protected under the law against even lawful eviction through Court process, such as under the Rent Control Act. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act does not offer such protection, but only, as stated earlier, forbids forcible dispossession, even with the best of title."
(3.) This Court further went on to observe in paragraph 15 of the report as below: ".........Lawful possession cannot be established without the concomitant existence of a lawful relationship between the landlord and the tenant. This relationship cannot be established against the consent of the landlord unless, however, in view of a special law, his consent becomes irrelevant. Lawful possession is not litigious possession and must have some foundation in a legal right to possess the property which cannot be equated with a temporary right to enforce recovery of the property in case a person is wrongfully or forcibly dispossessed from it. This Court in Lallu Yeshwant Singh's case (AIR 1968 SC 620) (supra) had not to consider whether juridical possession in that case was also lawful possession. We are clearly of opinion that juridical possession is possession protected by law against wrongful dispossession but cannot per se always be equated with lawful possession." ;