Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Sarita Gopalkumar Chand, filed a suit for ejectment and vacant possession of suit plot No.253 in CRS III Scheme, NIT Middle Precinct, Nagpur, admeasuring 1500 sq.ft. The suit property was originally allotted on renewable leasehold rights by Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) to Tulsabai Mahagu Khobragade and Dattatraya Mahagu Khobragade on 24.5.1996. Mahagu expired on 13.3.1975, leaving his wife Tulsabai and son Dattatraya. Tulsabai expired on 12.7.1998, leaving Dattatraya as sole heir. The plaintiff purchased the suit property for Rs.2,75,000 on 17.9.1998 after Dattatraya obtained consent from NIT for transfer. During Mahagu's lifetime, he had permitted Sitaram Khobragade (predecessor of defendants) to use and occupy a temporary structure of 3000 sq.ft. without any occupation charges. In 1997, Regular Civil Suit No.902/1997 was filed by Mahagu and two others against Dattatraya and others, which was dismissed with costs. The dismissal was challenged in Regular Civil Appeal No.482/1998. The defendants claimed that they were tenants and had become owners by adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the suit. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the defendants were mere licensees whose possession became unlawful after the transfer, and they cannot deny the plaintiff's title. The court decreed the suit for ejectment and vacant possession.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Ejectment - Licensee's Possession After Transfer - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 52 - The plaintiff purchased leasehold rights in suit property after obtaining consent from the lessor. The defendants, who were originally permitted to occupy a temporary structure by the previous owner, continued possession after transfer. The court held that the defendants' possession became unlawful after the transfer, and they cannot deny the plaintiff's title. The suit for ejectment was decreed. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Lis Pendens - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 52 - During pendency of earlier litigation, the defendants filed a suit claiming title, which was dismissed. The court held that the principle of lis pendens applies, and the defendants cannot claim any right based on their possession during the pendency of the suit. (Paras 4-6) C) Civil Procedure - Appeal - First Appeal against dismissal of suit - The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove title and that the defendants were tenants. The appellate court reversed, holding that the defendants were mere licensees and the plaintiff had valid title. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff, as transferee of leasehold rights, is entitled to ejectment and vacant possession of the suit property from the defendants who were originally licensees of the previous owner.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and order dated 25.9.2008 passed by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge S.D., Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No.575/2006 is set aside. Suit for ejectment and vacant possession is decreed with costs throughout.
Law Points
- Licensee's possession becomes unlawful after transfer of property
- Licensee cannot deny title of transferee
- Ejectment suit maintainable against licensee
- Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
