Smt Bhumi vs. Suresh Darwani

Held

The Court held that the suit shop is owned by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Neemuch, and was leased to the plaintiff, Suresh Kumar, on 10/2/1993. The lease deed explicitly prohibited transfer to any third party without the Nagar Palika Parishad's written permission. There was no evidence of such permission for a transfer to Brijesh, husband of Defendant No. 1. Therefore, any subsequent claim through Brijesh, including the alleged partition document (Sahmati Patra), is illegal, ineffective, and inconsequential as they had no right to allot the shop to anyone other than the original lessee. While Brijesh and Defendant No. 1 might have been recorded in Nagar Palika Parishad's records, this was without any specific order or legal basis for transferring the license. The Court found that the plaintiff, as the original licensee, is deemed to be in legal possession, and Defendant No. 1 has no semblance of possession. The findings of the lower courts were affirmed as they were based on a correct appreciation of evidence and legal principles. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Defendant No. 1, is aggrieved by an order of the Additional District Judge affirming the order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, which granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff (Respondent No. 1). The plaintiff claims to have obtained possession of a suit shop from Nagar Palika Parishad, Neemuch, on a license agreement dated 10/2/1993 and has been operating a business there. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are attempting to sell the shop and have threatened him to vacate. The defendants contend that the shop was allotted from joint family property, fell to the share of Brijesh (husband of Defendant No. 1) upon partition, and that Brijesh was the legal tenant. Defendant No. 1 claims possession after Brijesh's death and filed a counter-claim. The trial court and the appellate court below granted the injunction to the plaintiff and rejected the defendant's application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff, as the original licensee of the suit shop from the Nagar Palika Parishad, Neemuch, can claim legal possession despite the suit shop being recorded in the name of the deceased Brijesh (husband of Defendant No. 1) and subsequent alleged partition and payment of dues by Brijesh and Defendant No. 1? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the suit shop was allotted from joint family property, fell to Brijesh's share in a partition, and that Brijesh was the legal tenant, with Defendant No. 1 being in possession after him. They relied on a partition document (Sahmati Patra) and a certificate from Nagar Palika Parishad recording Brijesh as a tenant, as well as the payment of lease rent and GST documents being in Defendant No. 1's name. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (plaintiff) argued that he obtained the shop on a license from Nagar Palika Parishad and has been in possession. He contended that the original lease deed prohibited transfer without the Nagar Palika Parishad's permission, and no such permission was granted for any transfer to Brijesh. Therefore, any subsequent claims or records in favour of Brijesh or Defendant No. 1 are illegal and ineffective.