Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 1606 of 2008
PETITIONER:
Jaswant Kumar Vyas
RESPONDENT:
Krishna Dev Sharma
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/2008
BENCH:
TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1606 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No 5140 of 2008 CC 2618 of 2008 )
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal is filed by way of a special leave petition against
the final judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad dated 25th of October, 2007 in Second Appeal No. 539 of
2006 whereby a learned Judge of the High Court had dismissed the
second appeal filed by the appellant and affirmed the orders of the
courts below.
4. A suit for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises was
instituted by the plaintiff/respondent which was decreed by the trial
court and the decision of the trial court was affirmed by the first
appellate court and finally, the second appeal of the appellant was
dismissed. Before the High court in the second appeal, the only
question that was raised was whether in the present case, notice under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act should be restricted to 6
months or 1 month. All the three courts below held that tenancy was
from month to month and accordingly, the second appeal was
dismissed and the orders of the courts below were affirmed. This
special leave petition has now been filed against the aforesaid
judgment in second appeal affirming the judgments of the courts
below in respect of which leave has already been granted.
5. Mr. A. Subba Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant restricted his arguments to the order passed by the learned
single Judge, which is as follows: -
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, the appellant is granted time up to the end
of May 2008, on condition that he furnishes an
undertaking before the trial court, within four weeks
from today, to the effect that he will put the
respondent herein in vacant possession and
continues to pay the rents regularly. In default,
apart from being liable to be evicted, the appellant
shall be liable to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.
10,000/- per month beyond 31.05.2008."
6. According to Mr. Rao, the High Court was in error to direct the
appellant to pay damages at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month if the
appellant continues to remain in possession of the suit premises after
31st of May, 2008 which was granted by the High Court in the
impugned judgment. Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, learned counsel
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
appearing for the respondent, conceded that this direction of the High
Court was in fact not justified. Considering the fact that proceedings
for mesne profit under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil
Procedure shall be proceeded with in accordance with law and in view
of the concession of learned counsel for the respondent, direction to
pay damages at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month, if the appellant
continues to remain in possession after 31st of May, 2008 must be set
aside. Therefore, we set aside the portion to the effect that the
appellant shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per
month if he continues to remain in possession of the suit premises
after 31st of May, 2008.
7. For the reasons aforesaid the appeal is disposed of by deleting
the portion as quoted hereinabove. However, the appellant is granted
nine months time from today to vacate the suit premises on payment
of Rs.2,000/- per month subject to filing of usual undertaking in this
Court within a period of four weeks from this date.