Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Order Date: September 23, 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Appellants – Raj Kumar Ghosh and others; Respondents – Jyoti Biswas and others. The dispute centres on a leasehold property originally owned by Deba Prasad Gooptu, later leased to Probodh Chandra Mitra (Bristol Hotel) and subsequently to Bando & Company for 99 years on 06‑02‑1978.
- Historical Background: The original owner (Gooptu) issued a notice to quit to the Mitra tenant on 12‑08‑1953, leading to Suit No.1059 of 1954 for possession and arrears. The suit was abated after the original plaintiff’s death and subsequent substitutions. Bando attempted to intervene as plaintiff but was dismissed, leaving the first suit abated.
- Subsequent Litigation: Bando filed a second suit on 25‑07‑1984 seeking declaration that the original tenancy between Gooptu and Mitra was terminated and binding on Mitra’s heirs. This suit was dismissed for default, revived after ten years, and resulted in a Compromise Decree between Bando and the successor of Mitra. The Compromise Decree formed the basis of Execution Petition No.146 of 2017.
- Legal Issues Raised: The Supreme Court noted several unresolved questions:
- Whether Bando, under the 1978 lease, stepped into the shoes of the original owner and thus acquired enforceable rights to future rent under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
- The status of the Mitra family’s tenancy after the 1953 notice to quit and whether they became trespassers.
- The rights of sub‑tenants inducted by the Mitras without the lessor’s consent, and whether an eviction order against the lessee binds the sub‑lessee.
- The need for a detailed fact‑finding trial to adjudicate title, interest, and rights of the obstructionists, as mandated by Order XXI Rule 35 of the CPC.
- Court Proceedings: The Division Bench of the High Court had earlier directed eviction of occupiers based on the Compromise Decree. The Supreme Court examined the impugned order and found no ground to interfere with the High Court’s direction, but emphasized the necessity of a comprehensive adjudication of sub‑tenants’ claims.
Final Outcome
- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants.
- It directed the Execution Court to expedite a full trial on the merits of the sub‑tenants’ individual claims and to conclude the adjudication within six months from the date of the order.
- The receiver shall continue to remain in possession of the property, and all remaining occupiers must pay rent as previously fixed by the Court.
- The appellants (obstructors) shall continue paying the stipulated monthly remuneration to the receiver until the execution petition is finally resolved.
- If, after the detailed trial, the obstructors are found to have a valid right, they may be reinstated in possession despite their current exclusion.
- All pending applications, if any, were rejected.
Topics: Property Law, Lease Dispute