[Civil Appeal No. 1137 of 2013 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.374 of 2009]. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of judicature of Calcutta in M.A.T.No.847 of 2008, dated3rd December, 2008. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has issued the following directions: "The order under appeal is affirmed in so far as it quashed the re-advertisement and is modified in its remaining part by directing the University to undertake a selection process between the two remaining candidates - the writ petitioner and Subrata Biswas - upon setting down objective standards of evaluation; giving weightage by way of marks to the educational qualifications, experience and performance at a fresh interview of the two candidates that may be taken. In the event, however, that Subrata Biswas is not interested or does not show up at the interview, the appellant should be appointed. The entire exercise should be completed by the university within a period of six weeks from date. The appeal and the applications are disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. "The facts in nutshell are : An advertisement was issued by the University some time in the year 2003 to fill up the post of Assistant Director (Adult and Continuing Education and Extension). The said post was reserved for Scheduled Caste (S.C.)/ Scheduled Tribe (S.T.) candidates. Pursuant to the advertisement issued, several candidates had appeared before the Selection Committee of the University. In the process of selection, the Selection Committee had recommended the name of one Ajit Kumar Mondal, tobe appointed for the advertised post.
↧
Visva Bharati Vs. Shri Baidya Nath Saha [12/02/13]
↧
Vijoy Kumar Pandey Vs. Arvind Kumar Rai [13/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1310 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28824 of 2011]. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th January, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta whereby in FMA No.1415/2009 filed by the respondent No.1 has been allowed, the order passed by the Single Judge of that Court set aside and the respondent-School Service Commission directed to act in terms of an earlier order dated 12th March 2009 passed by that Court in Writ Petition No. 6117(W) of 2004. The controversy arises in the following backdrop. Against the vacant post of Headmaster at Howrah Siksha Niketan, as many as five candidates applied for appointment to the School Service Commission, West Bengal. The Commission found two of those applying for the post to be ineligible but short listed the remaining three for consideration. Kavindra Narayan Roy, one of the candidates found ineligible questioned the rejection of his candidature in Writ Petition No.6117 (W) of2004 filed before the High Court of Calcutta and obtained an interim order staying publication of the panel. That order continued to remain operative for nearly five years till 2009 when the writ petitioner-Kavindra Narayan Roy withdrew the said petition as he had by that time attained the age of superannuation. The Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta while dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn vacated all interim orders but directed that the period during which the panel could not be operated due to the interim order passed in the writ petition should be excluded for computing the life of the panel.
↧
↧
M/s. Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Special Director of Enforcement [13/02/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 1306-1309 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.15546-15549 of 2008]. These appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 14th March, 2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the High Court has partly allowed FERA Appeal Nos.8 to 11 of2008 that assailed the common order dated 28th November, 2007 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi and reduced the penalty imposed upon the appellants for contravention of Sections 14 and 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by 50%. The factual matrix in which the adjudication order came to be passed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai and the appellate order passed by the Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi has been set out in the order passed by the Tribunal and the order passed by the High Court of Bombay mentioned earlier. It is, therefore, unnecessary to recount the facts over again except to the extent it is absolutely necessary for disposal of theseappeals. Appellant-Telestar Travels Private Ltd. carries on a travel agency and specialises in booking of tickets for crew members working on ships. Most of the shipping companies are based abroad with their representatives located in Mumbai who would issue instructions to the appellant-company to arrange air passage for the crew from Bombay and other places in India to particular ports abroad. The company would then take steps to have tickets issued on the basis of such instructions for different destinations.
↧
A. Savariar Vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [15/02/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 1078-1079 of 2013]. These appeals are directed against judgments dated 28.2.2008 and 4.2.2010 of the Full Bench and the Division Bench respectively of the Madras High Court whereby the appellant's challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge was negatived and his dismissal from service was upheld. The appellant joined service under the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short, 'the Commission') as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 1.9.1973. While he was posted in 'P' Section of the Commission, which deals with the appointment of Invigilators and Chief Invigilators for various examinations, the Commission issued Notification dated 8.8.1989 for holding competitive examination for direct recruitment of Assistant Surgeons. The main written examination was conducted on 17.2.1990 and 18.2.1990. Shri Syed Abdul Kareem, who was appointed as Chief Invigilator at Bharathiar Government Arts College for Women, North Madras, examination centre, met the Superintendent of Section 'P' on 15.2.1990 and requested him to appoint some other person as Chief Invigilator by saying that he was suffering from heart ailment. When the Superintendent expressed his inability to accede to his request, Shri Sayed Abdul Kareem asked for the list of persons who were to assist him. Thereupon, he was given a list of 19 persons. Some of the persons named in the list informed the Chief Invigilator on telephone that they were unable to assist him.
↧
Vivek Kalra Vs. State of Rajasthan [15/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2007]. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 25.10.2004 of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 2002, maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short 'the IPC') and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence. The facts very briefly are that on 08.06.1997 at about 8.30 a.m., one Lal Singh, who was running a tea shop at By-pass Road, Sedariya Tiraha, lodged an FIR with Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer. In the FIR, he stated that at about 8.00 a.m. on 08.06.1997 one truck driver told him that ahead of Shantinath Dharm Kanta, on the wall of pulia (small bridge) one boy has been murdered and laid down and he went there to see and found that one boy, aged about 13-14 years, was lying dead in a pool of blood and several persons have gathered there. The police registered a case under Section 302, IPC, and after investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302, IPC. At the trial, the prosecution did not examine any eye- witness to the murder of the deceased, but produced circumstantial evidence to establish that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased and the trial court convicted the appellant.
↧
↧
Sanaullah Khan Vs. State of Bihar [15/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal Nos. 94-95 of 2011]. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 16.12.2009 of the Patna High Court in Death Reference Case No. 1 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 379 of 2007. The facts very briefly are that a fardbeyan was lodged on 17.12.2002 by one Sanju Kumar (hereinafter referred to as Informant), resident of Village Mathura, P.S. Bidupur, District Vaishali. In the fardbeyan, it was stated: Father of the informant, namely Ravindra Prasad, was running a tea stall near the Eastern gate of the GPO. For the tea stall he required about 25 Litres of milk everyday and this milk was being supplied by Sanaullah Khan, the appellant herein, for about a month. Sanaullah Khan started mixing water with the milk and the customers of the tea stall started making complaints about the quality of tea. On 02.12.2002 at about 2.00 p.m. Sanaullah Khan along with Md. Hamid and Arvind came to the tea stall and demanded the dues for the supply of milk. After calculation it was found that the dues amounted to Rs. 1,000/- and Ravindra Prasad gave Sanauallah Khan Rs. 500/- and told him that the rest of the amount will be paid later. Ravindra Prasad, however, informed Sanaullah Khan that the milk supplied by him was not up to the mark and therefore he will no longer purchase milk from his Khatal.
↧
State of Punjab Vs. Salil Sabhlok [15/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 2685 of 2012]. [Civil Appeal No. 7640 of 2011]. In these appeals against the judgment and orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a very important question of law arises for our decision: whether the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can lay down the procedure for the selection and appointment of the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission and quash his appointment in appropriate cases. The relevant facts very briefly are that by notification dated 07.07.2011, the State Government of Punjab appointed Mr. Harish Dhanda as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission. On 10.07.2011, the respondent No.1 who was an Advocate practicing at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, filed a public interest litigation under Article226 of the Constitution (Writ Petition No.11846 of 2011) praying for a mandamus directing the State Government to frame regulations governing the conditions of service and appointment of the Chairman and/or the Members of the Public Service Commission as envisaged in Article 318 of the Constitution of India. The respondent No.1 also prayed for a direction restraining the State Government from appointing Mr. Harish Dhanda as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission in view of the fact that his appointment does not fall within the parameters of integrity, impartiality and independence as reiterated time and again by this Court.
↧
Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary Home (Courts C1) Department [18/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No.1389 of 2013 @ out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23312/2009]. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 19.3.2009 rendered by a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 26147 of 2008. By that order the said writ petition of the appellant disputing her non-appointment to the post of a Civil Judge in Andhra Pradesh, has come to be dismissed. The appellant herein is an advocate practicing in the courts at Markapur, District Prakasam in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Andhra Pradesh High Court (Respondent No.2 herein) had invited applications for the appointments to 105 posts of (Junior) Civil Judges (including 84 posts by direct recruitment) by its Notification No.1/2007-RC dated 14.5.2007. A written examination was conducted for that purpose on 28.10.2007, and those who qualified therein, were called for an interview. After the interviews, some 81 candidates from amongst the direct recruits (and 17 by transfer)were selected by a committee of Hon'ble Judges of the High Court, and this selection was approved by the Full Court on the administrative side. The appellant was one of those who were selected, and her name figured at S.No.26 in the list of selected candidates from the general category. However, it so transpired that whereas the other selected candidates were issued appointment letters, the appellant was not. She, therefore, applied on 3.11.2008 under the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005, to find out the reason of her non-appointment.
↧
Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education Vs. Shant Kumar Agrawal [11/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 480 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 35941 of 2011]. [Civil Appeal No. 481 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 29901 of 2011]. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals filed against judgment and order dated 6.7.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 194 and 195 of 2009 is whether the respondent, who got his date of birth recorded in the service book on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1976 passed by IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior (for short, 'the trial Court') by suppressing the fact that the same had been reversed by Additional District Judge, Gwalior (lower appellate Court), can rely upon the said date of birth for the purpose of continuing in service beyond the age of superannuation. The respondent passed Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh (for short, 'the Board'). In the certificate issued by the Board on 17.6.1963, the respondent's date of birth was recorded as 20.2.1942. The respondent was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the office of Commissioner, Settlement and Director of Land Records, Madhya Pradesh on27.5.1965. He worked in that office till 3.8.1966.
↧
↧
R. Kuppusamy Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Ambeiligai [19/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No.1706 of 2008]. The short question that falls for determination in this appeal by special leave is whether the Courts below were justified in convicting the appellant for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and in awarding imprisonment for life to him on the basis of an extra-judicial confession that he is alleged to have made before the Village Administrative Officer, Veriappur, (VAO for short). The extra judicial confession was, according to the prosecution, reduced to writing by the VAO and found sufficient by the trial Court as also by the High Court to hold the appellant guilty of having committed the offence with which he was charged. That finding and the consequent orders recorded by the Courts below have been assailed by learned counsel for the appellant who argued that the making of the confessional statement was, in the facts and circumstances of the case, not only improbable but wholly unsupported and uncorroborated by any independent evidence. Relying upon several decisions of this Court, it was argued that the extra judicial confession was by its very nature a weak type of evidence which ought to be corroborated by independent evidence in order to support a conviction of the maker of the confession.
↧
The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Ch. Gandhi [19/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No.1428-1428 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 24224-24225 of 2008]. The present appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 14.6.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 12177 of 2007 and the order dated 8.2.2008 passed in Review WPMP (SR) No. 126152 of 2007 arising from the said writ petition whereby the Division Bench overturned the order dated 16.5.2007 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal") in O.A. No. 923 of 2006 on the ground that the disciplinary authority had imposed two major penalties. Be it noted, the High Court granted liberty to the department to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short "the Rules"). The facts which are imperative to be adumbrated are that a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 5 of the Rules was initiated against the respondent, a Senior Accountant in the Office of the Sub Treasury, Nakrekal, on the charges that while functioning as the senior most Accountant in the said office and in-charge of the strong room keys, at the time of surprise check by the Deputy Director, District Treasury, Nalgonda, he was absent and had not signed the attendance register in token of his having attended the office and also not maintained the movement register as required under the Rules.
↧
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Giriraj Dubey [19/02/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. Of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.______ of 2013) Criminal M.P. No. 2088 of 2013]. Questioning the assailability and substantiality of the order dated 4.7.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in M.Cr.C. No. 1835 of 2012 whereby the High Court has declined to grant leave to the State to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 2.12.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 193 of 2010, the present appeal by special leave has been preferred. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be stated are that on the basis of an FIR lodged by the complainant, the investigating agency laid a charge-sheet before the competent court against the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC"). The learned Magistrate, on receipt of the charge-sheet, committed the matter to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated 2.12.2011, acquitted the respondent herein of the charge on the foundation that there was no witness to the occurrence of the crime and further PW-2, the wife of the complainant, could not tell the exact abuses hurled at her by the accused respondent.
↧
Balmer Lawrie & Company Ltd. Vs. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy [20/02/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 419-426 of 2004]. [Civil Appeal Nos. 926 of 2013]. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court of Calcutta dated 30.1.2002 and 24.12.2002 in FMA No. 301/2001, CO. 2038/1993, WP. Nos. 778/1992, 2613, 2798 & 3169/2000, 1109/1998 and 1739/1996, by which the Calcutta High Court by a majority decision held that the Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. - appellant, is a State within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Constitution'), and is thus, amenable to writ jurisdiction. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are: The appellant is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The shares of the appellant company were originally held by Indo-Burma Petroleum Co. Ltd., Life Insurance Corporation, Unit Trust of India, General Insurance Corporation and its subsidiaries, Nationalised Banks and also by the public. Subsequently, in 2001 its majority equity shares, i.e. 61.8% of its shareholding, which was held by IBP Co. Ltd., was transferred to Balmer Lawrie Investments Ltd. (BLIL), a Govt. company in which 59% shares are held by the government.
↧
↧
G.M. South Eastern Railway Vs. Benulal Mukherjee [04/01/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 77 Of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.21221/2004]. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that this matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Union of India Vs. Arun Jyoti Kundu and Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 472. In the present case, the Calcutta High Court vide its judgment dated 4.3.2003 passed in WPCT No.1325 of 2002, has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Relying upon the aforementioned judgment of the High Court rendered in WPCT No.1325 of 2002, the judgment of the Tribunal dated 7.1.2003 passed in O.A No.1419 of 1997 has been affirmed. This Court by its judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Arun Jyoti Kundu and Ors. (supra), has set aside the judgment of the High Court and that of the Central Administrative Tribunal and dismissed the O.A. filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In paragraph 19 of the judgment this Court has held as under: We are afraid that the tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the direction, it has issued. The fact that notwithstanding the Fifth Pay Commission not recommending, particularly, the payment of higher scale to two sets of typists, typists in English language and typists in Hindi language, the Government chose to give them relief with effect from 31.1.2000 would not justify an inference of discrimination or a finding that the authority has acted arbitrarily or unreasonably.
↧
The Managing Director, T.N.S.T.C. Vs. R.S. Kavitha [18/01/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 619 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P (C) No.4424 of 2011]. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. It is not disputed that respondent No. 1 - R.S.Kavitha does not fulfill the height qualification as prescribed for appointment to the post of Conductor under Rule 59(b) of the Appendix-III of the Service Rules. In spite of respondent No. 1 - R.S. Kavitha not fulfilling the aforesaid qualification, a direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge to the appellant-Corporation to consider her candidature, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. We are unable to subscribe to the views expressed by the High Court. Such relaxation in the height qualification unless provided for in the recruitment rules and given due publicity in the notification inviting applications would be in violation of the Rules. This apart, it would be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as numerous other candidates, who would be below the prescribed height, might have not applied for the advertised post. The impugned judgment of the High Court does indicate the existence of any provision of relaxation of the minimum height criteria.
↧
Brijesh Vipin Chandra Shah Vs. State of Gujarat [18/01/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 735 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.25586/2010]. The appellant herein was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Junior Clerk on 25.5.1998 as the father of the appellant died on 11.3.1996 while he was in service. It appears that under the Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerks, Clerks-cum-Typist (Direct Recruitment Procedure) Rules, 1990, for direct recruitment to Class III post, a candidate is required to undergo in-service training and on completion of training, is required to appear at the post-training examination and has to pass the same in maximum three chances. Although the appellant has been in service since 25.5.1998, he did not appear in the said examination held for recruitment to the Class III post till 2003. Thereafter, the appellant appeared in the said examination on three occasions and on all the three occasions, he was unable to clear the examination. Since the appellant failed to clear the examination for recruitment to the Class III post, his services were terminated on 20.11.2004. The appellant challenged the order of termination before the High Court of Gujarat and the High Court by its judgment dated 20.2.2009, directed the Government to give one additional chance to the appellant to appear in the examination. The High Court also directed that the services of the appellant shall be regularised on the post of Junior Clerk if he clears the examination in said additional chance. However, even in the additional chance given to the appellant, he was unable to pass the examination.
↧
Sunanda Mahendra Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra [22/01/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 764 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.5325/2011]. A perusal of the order passed by the High Court clearly shows that it is a non-speaking order. The writ petition has been disposed of in a perfunctory manner, without considering either the factual or the legal controversy involved. In our opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. On this short ground alone, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the High Court for consideration of the writ petition on merits. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant that he did not have the opportunity to file rejoinder affidavit before the High Court. If that be so, the appellant may be permitted to file rejoinder affidavit before the High Court and thereafter the writ petition be set down for final disposal. Hearing of the writ petition also is expedited. The appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions.
↧
↧
Raju Ghosh Vs. State of Tripura [30/01/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 801 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.23286/2012]. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Application for deletion of the names of Respondent Nos.4 to 8 is allowed. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the interim order dated 3.7.2012 passed by the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench in Writ Appeal No.23 of 2012. At the time of issuing notice in the special leave petition, this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the High Court. It is brought to our notice by Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Tripura that the elections are due to be held in February, 2013. There is acute shortage of police personnel in the State of Tripura. Therefore, it is necessary that the proceedings in this matter are finalized with utmost expedition. The aforesaid position is not disputed by Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, who, in fact, submitted that his clients had not sought any adjournment before the High Court and they are ready and willing to go ahead with the hearing of the writ appeal. We are of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the High Court takes up the hearing of the appeal on priority basis so that the State is not deprived of the services of the police personnel, who would be required at the time of elections. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal by requesting the High Court to decide the appeal (Writ Appeal No.23/2012), if possible, by the 7th of February, 2013.
↧
Hari Kishan Vs. Rajasthan High Court [30/01/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 945-948 of 2013 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.18512--18515/2012]. By our order dated 16.1.2013, we had expressed the opinion that all candidates, who were shown to have passed the preliminary examination in the initial (original) declaration of result as also those declared successful on the basis of the revised result, ought to be permitted to sit in the written examination. We had also made it clear that the candidates who had succeeded in the first preliminary examination but had been excluded on the basis of the subsequent exercise, shall also be permitted to sit in the written examination. We had also requested the High Court of Rajasthan to conduct the entrance examination for entry into the Rajasthan Judicial Services in future. Furthermore, we had requested the High Court to take over the responsibility of holding the written examination for the present selection also. In response to our request, the High Court of Rajasthan has filed an affidavit on 24.1.2013 through its Registrar. It has been stated in the affidavit that pursuant to this Court's order dated 16.1.2013, a meeting of the Full Court was convened to consider two issues, namely: whether the High Court at present would be in a position to conduct the Main Examination, 2011 or not?
↧
Kailash Paliwal Vs. Subhash Chandra Agrawal [15/02/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1362 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.33438/2010]. This appeal arises out of an order dated 26.8.2010 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, whereby First Appeal No.752 of 2008, filed by the respondent herein, has been allowed and the judgment of the Trial Court in O.S. No.9A/2008 reversed. It is not, in our opinion, necessary to recapitulate the factual backdrop in which the controversy arises, in detail. The order passed by the Trial Court as well as the Fist Appellate Court, sufficiently do that part. All that we need mention is that a suit seeking a decree for possession was filed by the plaintiff-appellant herein against the defendant-respondent on the ground that the defendant-respondent was in occupation of the suit property despite termination of his tenancy by the plaintiff-appellant. The defendant- respondent herein disputed the alleged tenancy pleaded by the appellant and set up his own title based on a certain oral sale in his favour. The Trial Court eventually came to the conclusion that the jural relationship of landlord & tenant was established between the parties and accordingly decreed the suit in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendant-respondent preferred a regular first appeal before the High Court which, as noticed above, was allowed by the High Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The High Court was of the view that the relationship of landlord and tenant had not been established by the plaintiff-appellant and the suit, on that basis, was not maintainable.
↧