S R EJAZ Vs. TAMIL NADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-9
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
February 26,2002
S.R.EJAZ
Appellant
VERSUS
TAMIL NADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MAHARAJA DHARMANDER PRASAD SINGH:MAHARANI RAJLAXMI KUMARI DEVI [REFERRED]Cited Judgements :-
BANDHU BAXIA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2009-4-37] [REFERRED TO]PULLIPADAM METAL AND METAL SAND PVT. LTD VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2023-6-83] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE NARAYAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
HET RAM VS. MOHINDER SINGHQ [LAWS(HPH)-2014-9-86] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL KISHORE GUPTA VS. PREM LATA [LAWS(HPH)-2006-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
MOTILAL MEMORIAL SOCIETY THRU. INTERIM COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER VS. M/S. AGRAWAL EVENTS AND EXPORT, NIRALA NAGAR, LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-689] [REFERRED TO]
PISTA BAI VS. BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-2008-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
VEENA DEVI VS. PRAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-3-163] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER CHAUDHARY VS. KISHAN KUMAR PAUCHAURI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. BHASKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2010-10-53] [REFERRED TO]
BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-10-507] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. SARJU BAI [LAWS(MPH)-2011-4-33] [REFERRED]
RAJU SHARMA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2014-1-19] [REFERRED TO. (II)]
RANJEET KUMAR SINGH VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2018-6-201] [REFERRED TO]
Bhagaban Behera VS. Central Institute of Fresh Water Aqua-Culture [LAWS(ORI)-2009-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
R. USHA VS. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE [LAWS(KAR)-2014-11-132] [REFERRED TO]
E. CHANDRASHEKHAR VS. KANNAPPA MUDALIYAR AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-11-143] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KUMAR DIXIT VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-10-43] [REFERRED TO]
BHEEKAM CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-65] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP PANJWANI VS. COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(MPH)-2011-4-103] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRASAD PAL @ RAM PALTAN PAL AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-411] [REFERRED]
RABINDRANATH OJHA VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND 2 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2010-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
JAYAMMA VS. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER [LAWS(KAR)-2008-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
MAA KAILA DEVI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2012-3-59] [REFERRED TO]
KESAR PRALHAD PALI VS. RAMESH CHAITRAM NEWARE [LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-558] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAN SINGH VS. KAILASH NARAYAN AND ORS [LAWS(CHH)-2008-6-22] [REFERRED]
MAA KAILA DEVI ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2012-3-135] [REFERRED TO]
Pista Bai W/o Late H. Bhavarlal and others VS. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike rep. by its Commissioner and others [LAWS(KAR)-2008-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
SUJIT KUMAR DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2007-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
R. KRISHNAMURTHI VS. VAIRAMURTHI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-6-315] [REFERRED TO]
LATA SONI VS. JAMSHEDPUR NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE [LAWS(JHAR)-2002-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
K DURAIRAJ VS. ASHOK KAKRI [LAWS(MAD)-2010-1-175] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH SALDHANA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-3-268] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR PRADESH BADMINTON ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2005-9-141] [REFERRED TO]
VEDVRAT SHARMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-6-208] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. GUNTUR DIGNUMATE NETI KOTALA DHARAM CHALIVENDRA SANGAM [LAWS(APH)-2002-6-86] [REFERRED TO]
SOMNATH TRUST VS. JAMNADAS MADHAVJI INTERNATIONAL LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2004-3-98] [REFERRED TO]
PREM PRAKASH PANDEY VS. DIPAK DAS GUPTA [LAWS(CAL)-2015-11-73] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI NARAYAN VS. NAGAR PALIKA SHAMLI [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-237] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. LEKH RAJ [LAWS(P&H)-2010-7-95] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL SHARMA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2014-6-158] [REFERRED TO]
TILAK PRADHAN VS. A K HARITWAL [LAWS(MPH)-2012-12-66] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Shah, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant who was forcibly and illegally dispossessed since May, 1986 from the tenanted premises by his landlord is moving from pillar to post for getting justice. Unfortunately, after considering all the relevant facts which were brought on record, the High Court remanded the proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for reconsideration by the trial Court. It is apparent that the whole purpose of proceedings under Section 6 of the Act is frustrated by such order. The procedure under Section 6 of the Act is summary and its object is to prevent self help and to discourage people to adopt any foul means to dispossess a person. Dispossession of a tenant should be in accordance with law.
(3.)It is the submission of the appellant that as Proprietor of India Watch House, he was doing business in tenanted premises situated at 843, Anna Salai, Madras for more than 35 years. Subsequently, the respondent the Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., Madras purchased the said premises and, therefore, the appellant was paying rent regularly to it.
(2.)The appellant who was forcibly and illegally dispossessed since May, 1986 from the tenanted premises by his landlord is moving from pillar to post for getting justice. Unfortunately, after considering all the relevant facts which were brought on record, the High Court remanded the proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for reconsideration by the trial Court. It is apparent that the whole purpose of proceedings under Section 6 of the Act is frustrated by such order. The procedure under Section 6 of the Act is summary and its object is to prevent self help and to discourage people to adopt any foul means to dispossess a person. Dispossession of a tenant should be in accordance with law.
(3.)It is the submission of the appellant that as Proprietor of India Watch House, he was doing business in tenanted premises situated at 843, Anna Salai, Madras for more than 35 years. Subsequently, the respondent the Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., Madras purchased the said premises and, therefore, the appellant was paying rent regularly to it.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.