Case Title:
RANJIT SINGH & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
Date of Order:
12th September 2024
Bench:
Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Augustine George Masih.
Parties:
Appellants- RANJIT SINGH & ANR.
Respondent- STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
Subject-
The court affirmed the eviction of the defendants for their noncompliance with procedural mandates and their failure to contest a legitimate notice of termination according to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Important Provisions
Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 47- Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree.
(1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
(3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.
2[Explanation 1.-- For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.
Explanation II.-- (a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and
(b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.]
Transfer of Property Act
106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage.—
- In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice.
- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the period mentioned in sub-section (1) shall commence from the date of receipt of notice.
- A notice under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that sub-section, where a suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that sub-section.
- Every notice under sub-section (1) must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property.
Factual Overview
Plaintiffs filed a case for property possession against the State of Uttarakhand and the defendants, stating that the defendants had failed to pay rent on the property. The plaintiffs owned the challenged property, and the rent was determined at Rs. 86,232 per month starting September 1, 1993.
The rent was established by a court judgment dated May 18, 1999. In response to the defendants' inconsistent rent payments, the plaintiffs delivered a notice to terminate the lease and obtain possession of the premises under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882.
The plaintiffs initiated the current litigation for eviction and recovery of possession after the defendants failed to vacate the premises, despite the notice being issued.
The written statement was not submitted within the designated timeframe, despite the fact that the defendants arrived in court following their summons. They requested numerous adjournments to present their response, which commenced on December 13, 2001.
The defendants were unable to comply with the court's established timeframes, despite numerous opportunities. On February 18, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a petition to dismiss the defense for failing to adhere to court orders and procedural mandates.
The defendants were denied an additional opportunity to present their defense when the trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion and proceeded ex parte on April 22, 2002. On May 30, 2002, the case was postponed to allow for concluding arguments.
The plaintiffs were granted ownership of the land by the trial court following the ex parte processes. The defendants subsequently contested the ex parte decision, arguing that the court had erred in acting ex parte and that they were not afforded the opportunity to submit their defense. The defendants pursued recourse from the higher courts regarding the decision that was rendered against them after the appeal was denied.
Contentions of the Plaintiffs
The plaintiffs said that the defendants were long-term renters who had failed to remit rent as stipulated in prior court rulings. The plaintiffs claimed that, although many requests and the issuance of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the defendants neglected to remit the overdue rent or quit the premises.
The plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to ownership of the property after the legitimate termination of the lease, since the defendants had clearly failed on their commitments.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs underscored that the defendants had been had several opportunity to articulate their position and submit a written declaration, but had intentionally postponed the proceedings.
The plaintiffs said that the defendants' continual requests for adjournments were a blatant effort to extend the action, without any genuine purpose to present their defense. The plaintiffs contended that the trial court was warranted in proceeding ex parte and dismissing the defense.
The plaintiffs underlined that the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act met legal criteria, and that the defendants failed to challenge the notice's legality throughout the proceedings. The plaintiffs claimed their valid claim to the property, arguing that the trial court's ex parte ruling should be upheld by the appeal courts.
Arguments of the Defendants
The defendants, who were representing the State of Uttarakhand, argued that they were unjustly denied the opportunity to present their case. They argued that the formal announcement was not purposefully postponed, but rather arose from administrative challenges within the governmental framework.
The defendants claim that the settlement of the lawsuit was delayed owing to their position as a public institution, which necessitated more time to review relevant papers and secure the requisite clearances.
The defendants argued that the trial court unfairly disregarded their defense by acting ex parte and failing to explore the genuine grounds for the delay.
They argued that the court ought to have provided them with more time to make their written statement, considering the complexity of the case and the distinctive attributes of the parties concerned. The defendants argued that the trial court's refusal to allow them to defend the case contravened the principles of natural justice.
The defendants contended that the notice provided by the plaintiffs according to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was flawed, as it failed to meet the statutory requirements for terminating the lease.
The defendants contended that the plaintiffs did not provide enough notice of termination, therefore nullifying the eviction proceedings. The defendants sought the revocation of the ex parte ruling and the reinstatement of their ability to challenge the litigation.
Analysis of the Court
The court concentrated on two primary concerns: the lawfulness of the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the procedural equity of the trial court's decision to proceed ex parte. It evaluated the legal arguments and facts presented by both parties.
The court noted that the defendants were afforded numerous opportunities to submit their written statements and express their stance on procedural fairness. The defendants were summoned in November 2001; however, they failed to submit their written statement for more than five months, despite receiving numerous extensions from the trial court.
This was underscored by the court. When evaluating the defendants' justifications for the delay, the court emphasized that administrative inefficiencies within a government agency do not warrant special consideration or extended time beyond what is routinely allotted to other plaintiffs.
Bureaucratic obstacles are not considered a legitimate justification for delays, and government agencies are required to adhere to the same procedural standards as private parties.
The court concluded that the trial judge had exercised its authority prudently by balancing the necessity for litigation to proceed without undue delay with procedural justice. The defendants' repeated requests for delays suggested a propensity for procrastination rather than a genuine effort to comply with procedural requirements.
The court observed that the principles of natural justice were upheld, since the defendants had enough notice of the proceedings and had many opportunities to participate. The court determined that the trial court's decision to dismiss the defense and continue ex parte was legally sound and aligned with procedural norms.
The court observed that a notice to vacate must specify the termination of the lease in clear terms and must allow the tenant a reasonable amount of time to vacate the premises, as per Section 106.
The court noted that the plaintiffs had sent a notice that complied with statutory requirements, providing the defendants with sufficient time to vacate the premises and specifying the termination date.
The defendants' claim of a defective notice was rejected by the court, which observed that they had neglected to address this issue promptly during the trial. The defendants failed to challenge the legitimacy of the notice at the outset of the proceedings, indicating that they lacked a viable defense on this ground, the court observed, noting that the plaintiffs had adequately completed the statutory requirements of Section 106.
The court emphasized that a tenant's reluctance to remove a property after the valid termination of a lease constituted a breach of legal responsibilities. The plaintiffs were stated to have the right to retake ownership of the property after meeting all procedural requirements for lease termination, according to the court.
The court emphasized that the landlord has a clear legal right to seek possession via the proper legal procedures if the tenant fails to evacuate the premises after a legitimate lease termination. The court affirmed the ex parte decree that awarded the plaintiffs possession, ruling that the defendants' appeal was unwarranted.
The court rejected the appellants' explanation for procedural delays due to governmental administrative inefficiency. The court ruled that all entities, whether private persons or government organizations, must comply with procedural rules intended to guarantee the equitable and prompt administration of justice.
The court noted that procedural norms exist to safeguard the interests of parties actively pursuing their claims and to prevent unjustified delays in litigation. Although the defendants had sufficient time and chances to adhere to court orders, their noncompliance was seen as an inequitable effort to obstruct the legal proceedings.
The trial court was found to have acted within its jurisdiction by dismissing the defense for non-compliance and proceeding ex parte. The ex parte order, which granted the plaintiffs ownership of the property, was deemed legally and procedurally valid by the court.
The court rejected the defendants' appeal and upheld the plaintiffs' right to reclaim custody of the property, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural regulations and ensuring that court directives are followed promptly.
