- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. v. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant obtained an eviction decree in Rent Suit No. 594/5333 of 1962 on 16-6-1969 against the first defendant, M/s United Artists Corporation, for non-payment of rent and unlawful sub-letting. The trial court dismissed the suit against the other defendants (The Western India Theatres Ltd., M/s Halda Engineering Co. and Anti-Friction Bearing Corporation Ltd.). In Appeal No. 534 of 1969, the eviction decree against the first defendant was confirmed, and dismissal against the other defendants was maintained.
The appellant then filed Writ Petition No. 1695 of 1979 in the High Court. The High Court confirmed eviction against the first defendant and, reversing the trial court, passed an eviction decree against defendants 2-4 as well. A special leave petition by M/s Halda Engineering Co. was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4-5-1984, with a direction that the decree not be executed before 31-12-1984 if an undertaking was filed.
No execution took place until an application under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC resulted in an execution order on 9-9-1991. The present respondent obstructed delivery, claiming possession.
While obstruction proceedings were pending, the respondent filed RAD Suit No. 2152 of 1991 in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, seeking a declaration of tenancy. The trial court directed the respondent to pay mesne profits at Rs 443.93 per month but refused to hand over possession. The appellant’s challenge in the High Court failed, leading to this Supreme Court appeal by special leave. Attempts at an amicable settlement were unsuccessful.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, despite the respondent’s pending declaratory suit claiming tenancy, the Supreme Court should order immediate delivery of possession to the decree-holder.
- What interim monetary relief (mesne profits/compensation) should be fixed to safeguard the judgment-creditor’s interests during the pendency of the respondent’s suit.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that, although the appellant had a long-standing eviction decree, execution had been delayed for decades. It observed that prolonged procedural battles often allow parties in wrongful possession to exploit the system and emphasized the need to protect decree-holders.
However, because the respondent’s declaratory (tenancy) suit is still pending, the Court found it “not proper at this stage” to compel immediate delivery of possession. Instead, it focused on ensuring fair interim compensation. Highlighting the principle that a person holding over should pay reasonable mesne profits equivalent to market rent, the Court held that granting such compensation would mitigate continuing loss to the decree-holder without prejudging the tenancy issue.
The Court also referred generally to the judiciary’s power to appoint a Receiver or impose other protective measures in similar situations, underscoring its equitable jurisdiction to balance competing interests while litigation continues.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF – The appeal is disposed of with the following directions:
- The respondent’s RAD Suit No. 2152 of 1991 shall be disposed of “as expeditiously as possible,” preferably within one year.
- The respondent must pay mesne profits/compensation at Rs 10 per sq. ft. from 1984 until the date of this judgment and at Rs 20 per sq. ft. thereafter until suit disposal, adjusting any amounts already paid; arrears are to be cleared in 12 equal monthly instalments.
- No order as to costs.
Implications: The order secures interim monetary relief for the decree-holder while preserving the respondent’s right to litigate tenancy claims. The decision is confined to the facts of this case and does not articulate a new binding precedent.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed under the following circumstances. The present appellant had obtained a decree for eviction in Rent Suit No. 594/5333 of 1962 as early as on 16-6-1969. The suit was filed against (i) M/s United Artists Corporation (Original Defendant 1), (ii) The Western India Theatres Ltd., (iii) M/s Halda Engineering Co., and (iv) Anti-Friction Bearing Corporation Limited (Original Defendants 2, 3 and 4 respectively) for obtaining vacant possession of the said premises on the ground that Original Defendant 1 had failed to pay rent for a period of six months and for unlawful subletting the premises. The trial court decreed the suit against Defendant 1. On appeal, being Appeal No. 534 of 1969, the decree against Original Defendant 1 was confirmed and the decree of dismissal against Defendants 2 to 4 was also confirmed. Against that order, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 1695 of 1979 before the High Court. The High Court confirmed the decree against Original Defendant 1 and the order passed by the trial court dismissing the suit against them was also reversed by passing a decree against Original Defendants 2, 3 and 4. Against that judgment and decree, M/s Halda Engineering Company filed special leave petition before this Court. That petition was dismissed on 4-5-1984 with a direction that the decree shall not be executed on or before 31-12-1984 on the condition that the petitioner shall file an undertaking on the terms stated therein. For some reason or other, the said decree has not been executed until an application was filed under Order XXI Rule 22 of the CPC and in that application the Court passed an order on 9-9-1991 for execution of the decree and for delivery of possession. The present respondent obstructed the delivery of possession on the ground that he was in possession of the property.
3. Pending obstruction application, the respondent filed a declaratory suit being RAD Suit No. 2152 of 1991 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for a declaration of his tenancy rights by contending that there was a tenant of the premises since 1973 through M/s Halda Engineering Company. In the said suit, the present appellant (judgment-creditor) appeared and indicated the fact that how the decree for eviction granted in his favour had not been executed and prayed that possession should be delivered to him immediately and also that the respondent should be directed to deposit mesne profits from 1-1-1984 till 30-6-1996 at the prevailing market rent. The trial court did not accept the prayer for handing over possession, but directed the respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit, that he should pay at the rate of Rs 443.93p per month for the said period as mesne profit. The appellant carried the matter to the High Court unsuccessfully. Against that order, the present appeal is filed by special leave. When this matter was pending before this Court, the parties took several adjournments to get the matter amicably settled. However, till today, the matter has not been amicably settled.
4. From the narration of the facts, though it appears to us, prima facie, that a decree in favour of the appellant is not being executed for some reason or the other, we do not think it proper at this stage to direct the respondent to deliver the possession to the appellant since the suit filed by the respondent is still pending. It is true that proceedings are dragged for a long time on one count or the other and, on occasion, become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Because of the delay, unscrupulous parties to the proceedings take undue advantage and a person who is in wrongful possession draws delight in delay in disposal of the cases by taking undue advantage of procedural complications. It is also a known fact that after obtaining a decree for possession of immovable property, its execution takes a long time. In such a situation, for protecting the interest of the judgment-creditor, it is necessary to pass appropriate orders so that reasonable mesne profit which may be equivalent to the market rent is paid by a person who is holding over the property. In appropriate cases, the court may appoint a Receiver and direct the person who is holding over the property to act as an agent of the Receiver with a direction to deposit the royalty amount fixed by the Receiver or pass such other order which may meet the interest of justice. This may prevent further injury to the plaintiff in whose favour the decree is passed and to protect the property including further alienation.
5. In the present case, suit was filed in November 1962 on the ground as stated above including the ground that there was unlawful subletting. The High Court has decreed the suit on that ground. Special leave petition filed by M/s Halda Engineering Co. has been dismissed. Now, it is the contention of the respondent that they got possession of the property admeasuring 2500 sq. ft from M/s Halda Engineering Co. in or about 1973 and thereafter in 1978, entered into a partnership agreement with M/s Halda Engineering Co.
6. Having considered the relevant submissions of the parties including the submissions with regard to market rent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the parties in the pending suit, we think it appropriate to dispose of this matter with the following directions:
(1) That the suit in question be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from today.
(2) The respondents are directed to pay the mesne profits/compensation at the rate of Rs 10 per sq. ft from 1984 till today and at the rate of Rs 20 from today till the disposal of the suit. While making this payment, the payments already made shall be adjusted. So far as the arrears are concerned, they be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Alert