NEELKANTH Vs. MALLIKA BEGUM
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Click here to view full 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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.