KEWAL CHAND MIMANI D Vs. S K SEN

JUDGEMENT

(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 :-

(3.) This Court further went on to observe in paragraph 15 of the report as below: