NEELKANTH Vs. MALLIKA BEGUM
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-126
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on January 29,2002

NEELAKANTAN Appellant
VERSUS
MALLIKA BEGUM Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

BABAN BABURAO BORATE VS. DIGAMBAR GANPAT ALHAT [LAWS(BOM)-2003-7-179] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL AZIZ VS. LATE KANHAIYA LAL THROUGHT HIS L/RS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-10-55] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SHANKAR CHAUDHARY VS. SPECIAL OFFICER NOW PRESIDENT BIHAR STATE BOARD RELIGIOUS TRUST [LAWS(PAT)-2005-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIDHAR NAIK VS. SRIDHAR NAIK [LAWS(ORI)-2009-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
TRIVENI SAO VS. RAMDHEYAN SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2013-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHALAYA DEVI VS. KAUSHALAYA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2014-6-83] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK KHAJA SAHEB (DECEASED BY LRS) AND OTHERS VS. SHAIK ABDUL HANIF AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2005-9-122] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR VS. SATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-3-81] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN VS. DILE RAM [LAWS(P&H)-2012-5-202] [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTHAM PATEL VS. RAVULA LAKSHMINARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-2003-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
S. KARTHIKEYAN VS. P. JAWAHAR [LAWS(MAD)-2017-3-145] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHARITAR RAM AND ORS. VS. MADHESHWAR SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2004-6-79] [REFERRED TO]
T M MANICKA NAICKER VS. N J CHANDRASEKAR [LAWS(MAD)-2003-6-102] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMLA DEVI VS. SURESH KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2002-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VS. DEVINDER KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2002-3-37] [REFERRED TO]
HIROO RAM VS. NIRMALA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2002-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
KRIPAL SINGH VS. KAILASH CHANDRA PANDEY [LAWS(UTN)-2011-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
P.AMBICA VS. ARULMIGU VEDHARANYESWARA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM [LAWS(MAD)-2017-1-51] [REFERRED TO]
MURTI SHRI MAHADEV SHANKAR BHAGWAN KA MANDIR VS. LALU RAM [LAWS(MPH)-2008-12-65] [REFERRED TO]
H.S. OM PRAKASH AND ORS. VS. ANJANI RANJIT [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-553] [REFERRED TO]
V SUNDARAM VS. ARULMIGHU SUNDARAVARADARAJA PERUMAL DEVASTHANAM [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-668] [REFERRED TO]
YAMUNA MANDAL VS. KAMESHWAR MANDAL [LAWS(JHAR)-2004-2-70] [REFERRED TO]
ATMA RAM TRUST VS. DR. CHIRANJI LAL AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2007-1-222] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SHARMA VS. NISHI SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2002-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBHAU BHADUJI BHENDE VS. KISAN BHANDUJI BHENDE [LAWS(BOM)-2003-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
KABIRUDDIN MALLICK VS. ABDUL SATTAR MALLICK [LAWS(CAL)-2014-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT MOHAN SRIVASTAVA VS. DISTRICT JUDGE AND 11 ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2007-2-288] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH KUMAR VS. SATYAPRAKASH [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA MOHAN KUL NANI CHARAN KUL VS. PRATIMA MAITY [LAWS(SC)-2003-9-2] [REFERRED]
RAMNIWAS VS. JAGTBAHADUR SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-115] [REFERRED TO]
BABU LAL VS. SHRIPAT LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA DEVI VS. VIJAY KUMAR PODDAR WITH [LAWS(PAT)-2010-1-116] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJINI VS. MOHANDOSS [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-394] [REFERRED TO]
PATHAK TRIBHUVAN SINGH VS. KAMESHWAR SINGH [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJEET MAHTO VS. BABAN MAHTO [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN SINGH VS. JAWAHAR SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2012-12-140] [REFERRED TO]
NITYA HARIMAZUMDER VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2004-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
HAJI ABDUL HAQUE VS. SUJIT KR DAS [LAWS(GAU)-2002-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
KARODI VS. DASAI [LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJINI VS. MOHANDOSS [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-368] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA RAM THAKUR @ KRISHNA RAM VS. MAHESH SAO [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
Suresh Mahatha @ Suresh Sharma VS. Dulal Devi [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-9-150] [REFERRED TO]
B.RANGA SWAMY VS. SECY REVENUE DEPT HYD. [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
LRS OF RUGLA RAM @ RUGRA SINGH & ORS. VS. LRS OF SWAROOP SINGH & ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA VS. KAMLADEVI [LAWS(MPH)-2008-1-90] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA ELECTRICALS INDUSTRIES LTD VS. PURSHOTTAM [LAWS(MPH)-2004-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
CHHABI DUSHADH VS. BHUNESHWAR PANDEY [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
CANTONMENT BOARD VS. DISTRICT JUDGE (INCHARGE) [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-324] [REFERRED TO]
KALBE ALI VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [LAWS(UTN)-2004-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
MOHARAM MIAN VS. NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH ALIAS BHAGAT SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2002-8-68] [REFERRED TO]
MISHRILAL VS. RATI RAM [LAWS(MPH)-2007-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
HERO VINOTH VS. SESHAMMAL [LAWS(SC)-2006-5-109] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SANKAR DAS VS. RANJIT KUMAR KARMAKAR [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
Ogeppa and others VS. Sahebgouda and others [LAWS(KAR)-2012-10-142] [REFERRED TO]
NATHURAM VS. BABULAL [LAWS(MPH)-2012-7-186] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA DEVI VS. VIJAY KUMAR PODDAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
MARIAM HUSSAIN VS. SYEDANI [LAWS(KAR)-2007-3-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.)These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 18-11-1997 passed by the Madras High Court in Second Appeals, Civil Revisions and Cross Objections filed by the parties against each other involving same questions. The tenants have come up in appeal before this Court. The respondent Smt. Mallika Begum is the landlady of the accommodation in dispute. It will be convenient to refer to the partiess as tenants and landlady.
(2.)The landlady had purchased the suit property in the year 1979. According to the tenant-appellants, they have been residing in the accommodation in question since long before 1979. An earlier round of litigation between the parties, as initiated by the landlady for eviction of the tenants in 1980 ended in the High Court finally giving liberty to her to agitate the matter afresh in accordance with the law.
(3.)Later on, however, in the year 1984, tenants filed four suits separately in the City Civil Court, Madras against the landlady with a prayer for declaration that the Super-structure standing on the suit property, belongs to the tenants and further prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining her from disturbing their possession. The case of the tenant-plaintiffs has been that the Suit Property situated in Survey No. 1303/1, has been declared as slum area under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971, (for short 'Act'). Section 3 of the Act provides that the State Government, on being so satisfied, may declare any area as slum area. Section 29 of the Act inter alia,provides, that no proceeding can be initiated for eviction of an occupant from any building or land in the slum area except with the prior permission of the prescribed authority. The landlady, namely, the defendant in all the suits, pleaded that the case of the tenant-plaintiffs to the effect that the superstructure belongs to them is false. It was also pleaded that the property lay in Survey No. 1301/13 which has not been declared under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, as slum area. The plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of injunction since no prior permission was necesasry before initiating any proceedings for their eviction.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.