In a tenant-landlord dispute, the former is asked to vacate the property by the Supreme Court. But instead of complying, the tenant’s son ends up selling a share of the property and the buyer lodges a case against the landlord!As bizarre as it may sound, a recent Madras High Court throws light on how a tenant’s family continued to defy a Supreme Court eviction order and went on to sell the landlord’s property to two third-party purchasers.The buyers then asserted ownership rights on the strength of sale deeds executed by the tenant’s son. Read on to know what happened
What the case is about
The disputed property is situated in Vathikuppam and had been rented out. The Supreme Court, through its 2005 order directed the tenant to vacate the premises by August 31, 2006 and hand over peaceful possession to the landlord.The tenant, however, did not vacate the property. He and his wife had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of their son on August 10, 2001. Their son subsequently transferred the property through two registered sale deeds. One of the sale deeds was executed in January, 2012.One of the buyers alleged that the landlord’s family was interfering with her claimed peaceful possession of the property and approached the court seeking a permanent injunction.She was aggrieved by the developments and initiated legal proceedings against the landlord and his family. She sought a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with her claimed peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.When the landlord questioned how the tenant’s son could sell the property, the son relied on the settlement deed executed by his parents in his favour.After the landlord and his legal heirs learnt of these transactions, they approached the District Registrar, Puducherry, seeking cancellation of the settlement deed and the sale deeds.In a 2015 order, the registrar cancelled the sale deed executed in one of the buyer’s favour.The case went on to Madras High Court, which ruled in favour of the landlord’s family by striking off the buyer’s suit seeking permanent injunction.
Why did the landlord’s family win while the buyer lost?
The Madras High Court observed: “In the case in hand, it is a text book case where the tenant in the suit property, in spite of giving an undertaking before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to vacate and hand over the premises, managed to create a settlement deed in favour of his son, who, in turn, created two sale deeds.”The Madras High Court noted that the buyer had failed to disclose the earlier legal proceedings, including the Supreme Court’s eviction order, while seeking an injunction against the landlord’s family.It observed that the original tenant’s decision to execute a settlement deed in favour of his son, followed by the son transferring the property through two sale deeds to subsequent purchasers, amounted to contumacious conduct and was tantamount to contempt of court.The High Court also pointed out that the landlord and his family had been forced to run from pillar to post despite having prevailed in the earlier litigation, which had reached the Supreme Court in 2005.The court held that the buyer’s suit amounted to a clear abuse of the judicial process and re-litigation.The High Court further observed that the matter warranted the exercise of its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to prevent any further miscarriage of justice. It held that invoking this jurisdiction was necessary in the circumstances of the case.In 2014, the second buyer who acquired the property, moved the court through a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Tahsildar in connection with the disputed property. The Madras High Court rejected her petition on April 21, 2023, ruling that she had no rights over the landlord’s property and describing her occupation as illegal. It also ordered her eviction with police assistance.Kalpit Khandelwal, Partner at Aekom Legal, told ET that the buyer’s claim to the property hinged on the title held by the person who sold it to her, the tenant’s son. His claim, in turn, was based on a settlement deed executed by his parents, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s direction requiring his father to vacate the premises.The Madras High Court found that the buyer had concealed details of the earlier legal proceedings.
