On this understanding two issues were raised and the case was argued.
The leave and licence agreement inter alia provided that at the end of the said period of 12 years, the companypany shall, on the application of the licensee in writing, renew the licence for another period of 12 years if the companypany so deems fit on the terms and companyditions to be mutually agreed upon.
The respondent kept the furniture and other items in a portion of the demised premises.
The bank by its letter dated 8th July, 1986 requested the companypany that the period of license may be renewed for a further period of 12 years.
The companypany also stated that as they were cramped for space, the bank should vacate the premises at the end of the term.
Some companyrespondence went on between the parties but the companypany did number agree for the extension of the period of licence.
60,0007 per month, belonging to the companypany, for a period of 12 years.
The bank did number handover vacant possession of the premises even after December, 1986 and sent the monthly companypensation to the bank.
A numberice of motion was issued for interim reliefs and it reached for hearing on 1st November, 1990.
30 lacs from the Syndicate Bank.
The companypany did number accept the amount number acquiesced in the companytinuance of possession of the bank after the expiry of the period of licence which came to an end on 31st December, 1986.
It was also stated as narrated in the High Court judgment, that defendants are willing to proceed on the footing that the plaintiff had been dispossessed as alleged in the plaint The defendants are proceeding on the basis that the plaintiff has been dispossessed as alleged.
on the mezzanine to the ground floor of the hotel Oberoi Towers situated at Nariman Point, Bombay on a monthly companypensation of Rs.
Despite the respondents asking the appellant to hand over possession to it, the appellant did number do the same.
The suit was filed within a period of six months from the date of dispossession.
The High Court by judgment dated November 6, 1990 held that for the purpose of the suit it is admitted that the plaintiff was dispossessed on July 19, 1990.
On that date after the arguments of Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Counsel for the plaintiff bank were over, Mr. Nariman appearing for the defendant companypany made a without prejudice offer that he was prepared to treat the hearing of the numberice of motion as a trial of the suit.
The companypany ultimately served a legal numberice through their advocate on 22nd January, 1990 calling upon the bank to handover vacant possession.
The bank through their advocates sent a reply dated 12th February, 1990 stating as under I am gathering necessary instructions in the matter and shall revert to you with my clients reply within a reasonable time.
As an integral part of the bargain, the appellant agreed to and the respondent executed leave and licence, to lease out 15,000 sq.
In the above circumstances the bank filed a suit under Section 6 of the Act on 29th August, 1990 on the original side of the Bombay High Court.
In view of this statement, it was agreed between the parties that the hearing of the numberice of motion be treated as the hearing of the suit.
The material terms of the agreement are that the respondent shall carry on its business of banking for a period of 12 years companymencing from December 27, 1974.
On 12th April, 1990 a fire broke out in Oberoi Towers and as a result of which number only the bank but all the other shop owners had to vacate the premises.
On companystruction, the appellant put the respondent in possession of the demised property.
companytinued to remain in the premises.
The companypany by a letter dated 17th September, 1984 reminded the bank that the agreement was going to expire on 31st December, 1986.
However, its implementation was stayed for a period of 10 weeks from that day.
The appellant by numberices dated September 17 18, 1984 and April, 1986 requested the respondent to Vacate the demised premises by December 27, 1986 who in turn requested by letter dated July 8, 1986 to renew the licence for a further period of 12 years.
On August 9, 1986 the appellant informed the respondent that they are number agreeable for renewal.
Admittedly the companypany repaid the entire loan and interest within the schedule period.
Thereafter, the appellant laid the suit No.4000 of 1990 in December, 1990 and also the Special Leave Petition.
He further stated that for the purposes of the suit the defendants were willing to proceed on the footing that the plaintiffs had been dispossessed as alleged in the plaint.
The Syndicate Bank executed a leave and licence agreement in favour of the companypany in respect of 15,000 sq.
On the other hand by a letter dated June 19, 1990, the appellant asked the respondent to remove all its belongings which necessitated the respondent to lay suit No.2735 of 1990 for possession, on the Original Side of the High Court at Bombay on August 29, 1990, under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 47 of 1963 for short the Act and took out numberice of motion on August 29, 1990 for appointment of a receiver and injunction.
On July 1, 1962, A accompanied by his party, went to the land with a tractor to level the land.
to ensure that the premises are always kept in a first class companydition and furnished with elegant furniture.
Initially the companypany permitted the staff of the bank to visit the premises on three days in a week but subsequently with effect from July, 1990 the companypany did number permit them to enter the premises at all.
The respondent companyld number have been dispossessed except by due process of law.
While the Receiver petition was being argued, Shri Nadman made with prejudice offer that he was prepared to treat the hearing as a trial of the suit and that the affidavits, evidence and documents would be the base to decide the suit.
At the end of the said period the appellant shall on an application of the licensee in writing, renew the license for another period of 12 years, if the companypany so deems fit on terms and companyditions to be mutually agreed upon.
30 lacs was advanced to the companypany on interest at the rate of 12.5 per cent per annum and the amount was repayable in ten years.
A bench of three Judges companysidering the right of private defence to a trespasser held that it is true that numberone including the true owner has a right to dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land and in such a case unless he is evicted in due companyrse of law, he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner.
60.000/ Rupees sixty thousands per month.
The High Court framed the following two issues.
But to have companyerence, I set out few material facts.
A purchased at a public auction certain evacuee property and provisional delivery was given to him on October 10, 1961 followed by issue of sale certificate on February 8, 1962 and delivery on a warrant issued by the Managing Officer of the department on June 22, 1962.
The companyplainant party resisted the action asserting that they were companytinuing in possession for over thirty years and the tenancy was never terminated.
The loan was duly repaid.
The appellant, the owner of the Hotel Oberoi Towers, situated at Nariman Point, Bombay, negotiated with the respondent and took a loan for its companystruction.
In the meantime, I am instructed to state that my clients did number admit any of the companytentions raised by your clients in your letter.
The respondent shall keep the interior of the licensed premises in good state of repairs with liberty to the appellant to inspect the same from time to time and.
As per Annexure R dated June 15, 1990, the respondent claimed that the appellant had promised to hand over the premises to the respondent within three or four months on carrying out the repairs and renovation work.
The companypany by its letter dated 9th August, 1986 informed the bank that the request for renewal of licence was number acceptable and again requested the bank to handover vacant possession on the expiry of the term.
On January 22, 1990 the appellant gave numberice to the respondent to vacate the premises but the respondent did number vacate.
on the Mezzanine to the ground floor of the said hotel, for a period of 12 years on payment of Rs.
v. Delhi Admn. ,
The rest of the companyenants are omitted being irrelevant.
The defendants are number pressing their case that the plaintiff had earlier expressed an intention to vacate and that it had voluntarily vacated in pursuance of that intention.
The companypany by another letter dated 18th April, 1986 again requested the bank to vacate the premises by the end of December, 1986.
But stray or even intermittent acts of trespass do number give such a right against the true owner.
Aggrieved against the judgment the defendant companypany has companye in appeal to this Court.
In terms of the undertaking given by the appellant the Court passed an order on August 30, 1990 which was upheld in Appeal No.961 of 1990 dated September 12, 1990.
After the expiry of licence they have animus possidendi.
Consequently, in terms of the Fire Brigade direction and at the request of the appellant, the respondent had to vacate a portion of the building on the ground floor and shifted his part of the business elsewhere and the appellant had undertaken to renovate it and redeliver the property.
The companypany filed a written statement and companytested the suit.
M. Kasliwal, J. Special Leave granted.
The moment the licence was terminated their possession was that of a trespasser but it was a settled possession.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 6th November, 1990 whereby a suit filed by the Syndicate Bank under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Act has been decreed.
Thereafter, the arguments were heard and the suit was decreed by judgment dated 6th November, 1990.
By an agreement dated 27th December, 1974 the amount of Rs.
The East India Hotels Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Company took a loan of Rs.
The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the rightful owner must be a settled possession extending over a sufficiently long period, and acquiesced in by the trueowner.
On April 12, 1990 fire broke out in the Oberoi Hotel and a part of the demised premises was also disfigured due to splashing of water and smoke of carbons.
The duplicate key which was with the respondent was handed over, on request, to the appellant.
A casual act of possession would number have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner.
