Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Chandraprakash vs Oktopals Sports on 6 May, 2025
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Prashant Kumar Mishra
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8501-8506 of 2020)
CHANDRAPRAKASH & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
OKTOPALS SPORTS & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 19.09.2019,
in RC Rev.Nos.174, 175 & 177 of 2019, titled “Oktopals Sports &
Ors. vs. Chandraprakash & Anr.”; and, judgment and order dated
07.01.2020, in Review Petition Nos.977, 994 & 980 of 2019 against
the respective Revision Cases, titled “Chandraprakash & Anr. vs.
Oktopals Sports & Ors.”.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length,
certain facts, undisputed at that, emerges from the Record:-
a) the premises in question were let out to the
respondents herein by the previous owner, from whom the
instant appellants had purchased the same vide Ex.A1-sale
deed;
b) the said sale is executed by the previous owner in
favour of the appellants herein and not in the name of the
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
partnership Firm, as is observed by the High Court;
NAVEEN D
Date: 2025.05.20
17:20:45 IST
Reason:
c) the instant appellants alone are the partners of the
1
Firm, which in any event, is an unregistered one;
d) the relationship between the appellants and respondents
continued to be that of a landlord(s) and tenant(s) and
nothing more; and,
e) at no point in time, did the partnership firm ever
issued any receipt of rent in favour of the instant
respondents.
4. We proceed to examine the issue in the light of the aforesaid
undisputed facts.
5. The appellants herein, as landlords, preferred petitions for
ejectment of the instant respondents under the provisions of the
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short,
‘the Act’). The said petitions, instituted in the year 2005, came
to be decided by the Rent Controller vide order dated 31.01.2013 in
R.C.P.Nos.11/2005, 113/2005 & 117/2005, titled “Chandraprakash &
Anr. vs. Oktopals Sports”. The Rent Controller, after examining the
evidences led by the parties on three issues, held the landlords,
i.e., the appellants herein entitled to the following reliefs:-
“32. Point No.3 in RCOP Nos. 111/05,113/05 and
117/05: In the result,
1. RCOP No. 111/2005 is allowed Under S.11(3)
of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act.1965 as follows:-
The respondents are directed to put the
petitioners in possession of the petition
schedule building within Three months from the
date and on failure petitioners shall obtain
vacant possession of the same by due process
of law through court.
2. RCOP 113/05 is allowed u/s 1193) of the
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,2
1965 as follows:
The respondents are directed to put the
petitioners in possession of the petition
schedule building within three months form
this date and on failure the petitioners shall
obtain vacant possession of the same by due
process of law through the court.
3. RCOP No.117/2005 is allowed Under S.11(3)
of the Kerala as follows: Building (Lease and
Rent Control) Act, 1965 as follows:
The respondents are directed to put the
petitioners in possession of the petition
schedule building by vacating the premises
within three months from this date and on
failure the petitioner shall get vacant
possession of the same by due process of law
through the court.”
6. In appeals preferred by the respondents herein, i.e., the
tenants, the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.09.2018
dismissed the same, affirming the order of eviction passed by the
Rent Controller. Aggrieved thereby, the instant respondents
preferred Revision Petitions before the High Court, which stood
allowed in terms of the impugned orders. Though the appellants
herein preferred Review Petitions, the same stood dismissed.
7. In our considered view, the High Court misdirected itself in
considering the issue from the point of its maintainability,
holding that since the petitions for ejectment were not filed by
the partnership Firm, hence they were not maintainable. We are of
the considered view that High Court was not required to consider
the issue of locus standi of the appellants who preferred the
ejectment petitions for the same to have never raised before the
Rent Controller, as is evident from the issues framed therein,
which reads as follows:-
3
“The following points arise for consideration
and decision:-
1. Whether a landlord-tenant relationship
between the petitioners and respondents.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for an
order of eviction u/s 11(2)(b) of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for an
order of eviction u/s 11(3) of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act?”
8. All that the High Court was required to consider,:
a) whether there was a relationship of landlords and
tenants inter se the parties?;
b) whether the landlords were entitled to ejectment
from the premises under the provisions of Section 11(2)
(b) of the Act?; and,
c) whether the tenants were liable for ejectment under
the provision of Section 11(3) of the Act.
9. We may add, that while returning the findings with regard to
the maintainability of the petitions, the High Court erroneously
relied upon document Ex.B1, which is an alleged receipt issued by
the partnership Firm, that too not in relation to the instant
respondents/tenants but another occupant of the building who, in
any even, has already surrendered the tenancy and handed over the
possession of the property in favour of the appellants. The issue
as to whether the petitions were properly instituted was a factual,
and never raised at any point in time, as such in a Revision
Petitions not required to be considered.
10. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that
4
the concurrent findings of fact returned by both the Rent
Controller and the Appellate Authority ought not to have been
interfered with by the High Court in further rejecting the
petitions for ejectment. We may also add, that on the main issue as
to whether the appellants were been able to establish their rights
for ejectment under the provisions of 11(2)(b) and 11(3), the
findings stood affirmed by the High Court itself.
11. Hence, we are quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment
and order dated 19.09.2019, in RC Rev.Nos.174, 175 & 177 of 2019,
titled “Oktopals Sports & Ors. vs. Chandraprakash & Anr.”; and,
impugned judgment and order dated 07.01.2020, in Review Petition
Nos.977, 994 & 980 of 2019 against the respective Revision Cases,
titled “Chandraprakash & Anr. vs. Oktopals Sports & Ors.”. As such,
we restore the order passed by the Rent Controller as affirmed by
the Appellate Authority.
12. Accordingly, the Appeals are allowed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI
6th MAY 2025
5
ITEM NO.302 COURT NO.16 SECTION XI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Leave Petition (C) No(s).8501-8506/2020
CHANDRAPRAKASH & ANR. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
OKTOPALS SPORTS & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
IA No. 63638/2020 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 06-05-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAFor Appellant(s) :
Mr. R Basant, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jayesh K. Unnikrishnan, AOR
Mrs. Sasmita Tripathy, Adv.
Mr. Shiyas Kunjhibava, Adv.
Mr. Naman Vasishtha, Adv.
Mrs. Gitanjali Tripathy, Adv.
Ms. Smriti Parija, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Dr. Pavan Duggal, Adv.
Mr. Saakshar Duggal, Adv.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR
Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order, which is
placed on the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(D. NAVEEN) (ANU BHALLA)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
6
[ad_1]
Source link