Evict recalcitrant tenants by using police force: SC
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 19 May 2011
This query is : Resolved
Was not it a settled law already,what is new about this decision of SC:--
Coming to the aid of landlords, the Supreme Court has ruled that recalcitrant tenants can be forcibly evicted by the police if they fail to vacate the premises within the deadline given by the court. A bench of justice Markandeya Katju and justice Gyan Sudha Mishra said that it was passing the extra
related stories
BMC hopes to free open spaces of slums
ordinary order as it was vexed with the increasing number of cases in the country where tenants are refusing to vacate despite orders from even the country's highest court.
"We further make it clear that when this Court allows the petition/appeal of the landlord or dismisses the petition/appeal of the tenant and grants some time to vacate the premises in question and if the tenant does not vacate within the time granted, the tenant shall be evicted by police force.
"This is a general direction we are passing because we are coming across several cases where the tenants are not vacating the premises in question despite granting time by this Court or despite furnishing an undertaking to this Court with a result that the landlord has to initiate contempt proceedings or any other proceedings.
"Hence, we give a general direction that when tenant's petition/appeal is dismissed and he is given time to vacate then on the expiry of that time, he will be evicted by police force if he does not vacate of his own. If any extension of time to vacate is desired, that application should be filed well in advance," Justice Katju writing the judgement said.
The apex court passed the order while dealing with an interlocutory application moved by a tenant Ram Prakash Sharma seeking further time to vacate his rented premises.
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, time to vacate the premises in question is extended till 31st August, 2011 and if the tenants do not vacate on or before the said date, they will be evicted by police force," the bench said in its order.
Early last week the bench had summoned Delhi's Additional District Judge Archana Sinha for giving a stay on the eviction order passed by the apex court.
Furious at the judge's conduct, the court had directed the Chief Justice of the Delhi high court to initiate disciplinary action against the lady judge.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Evict-recalcitrant-tenants-by-using-police-force-SC/Article1-698688.aspx#disqus_thread
Please rspond.....
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 19 May 2011
its a very good judgment, it has been seen in certain cases that even if the eviction orders are passed the tenant in connivance with his relatives or some friends would file third party objections to delay the execution of the orders.
in my opinion the police help shall be provided at the very first instance, no tenant is kind enough to vacate the premises despite the court orders.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 19 May 2011
if someone is having the title of the judgment then please mention it here....
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 19 May 2011
There are two judgments in this regard. One judgment relating to third parties putting up claims of tenancy is attached.
As regards using the police force, the following is the judgment.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO.3 OF 2011
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5310 OF 2010
Ram Prakash Sharma ..Appellant
versus
Babulal irla (D) By Lrs. & Others ..Applicants/Respondents
O R D E R
Taken on Board.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, time to
vacate the premises in question is extended till 31st August, 2011 and if the tenants do not vacate on or before the said date, they will be evicted by police force.
We further make it clear that when this Court allows the petition/appeal of the landlord or dismisses the
petition/appeal of the tenant and grant some time to vacate the premises in question and if the tenant does not vacate within the time granted, the tenant shall be evicted by police force. This is a general direction we are passing because we are coming across several cases where the tenants are not vacating the premises in question despite granting time by this Court or despite furnishing an undertaking to this Court with a result that the landlord has to initiate contempt proceedings or any other proceedings. Hence, we give a general direction that when tenant's petition/appeal is dismissed and he is given time to vacate then on the expiry of that time, he will be evicted by police force if he does not vacate of his own.
If any extension of time to vacate is desired, that application should be filed well in advance.
The Interlocutory Application is allowed accordingly.
.....................J.
[MARKANDEY KATJU]
NEW DELHI; ..........................J.
MAY 12, 2011 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 19 May 2011
Landlords do not go overboard by these citations. This position is after final judgment by SC. In normal course now it will take min fifty years to get final judgement from SC.
Morever tenants pl note that why those citations have arisen because the related defense was not taken at earliest stage and was taken only after SC judgement hence fatal.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 19 May 2011
dear Your Advocate,
as far as rent matters are concerned now you can not say that it takes 50yrs to get final disposal from SC.
there have been clear directions by HCs to subordinate courts to dispose off the rent matters in a time bound manner.
I am having a personal experience of it, after the finality of judgment in my case, the siblings of tenant filed third party objections and resisted the delivery of possession by force.
the 'Balif' or 'executing officer' is not given importance by tenants so another round of litigation starts for police help, which wastes around 3 months of time.
so this order is quite good for landlords and certainly its a judgment in rem and will give benefit to public at large.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 19 May 2011
thanks Mr. Ramchandran for your quick response.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 21 May 2011
Thanks for all the experts for participating
But I myself could not find the judgement which I have mentioned in my original query,if someone finds the link ,kindly post here so that one and all may be benefited.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 21 May 2011
srry, Mr Ramachandaran had helped already,thanks.
Guest
(Expert) 24 May 2011
From his post, Your Advocate seems to be a pessimistic fellow.
