Mere use of word ‘rent’ not sufficient to infer that Club was lessee in possession of subject premises: Top Court upholds DM’s order asking PWD to take over possession of Raigarh Club
Justices Sanjay Kumar & Augustine George Masih [12-06-2024]

Read Order: RAIGARH CLUB, RAIGARH & ANR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS [SC- CIVIL APPEAL NO.4984/2015]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, June 17, 2024: The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition whereby the appellants contested the decision of Collector-cum-District Magistrate asking the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD) to take over possession of the Raigarh Club, a top club in the Chhattisgarh capital.

The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court had dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the appellants and confirmed the order passed by a Single-Judge Bench dismissing the Writ Petition filed by them.

In this matter before the Division Bench of Justice Sajay Kumar and Justice Augustine George Masih, the appellants had initiated a writ petition where challenge was laid to the communication of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Raigarh, whereby the Public Works Department was directed to take over possession of Raigarh Club.

It was reflected through the records that the appellants, viz., Raigarh Club, Raigarh, and Anil Agarwal, its Secretary, produced no document or any other basis or foundation to support the right claimed by them to remain in possession of the subject land wherein the club was situated.

Emphasis was sought to be placed upon an internal communication addressed by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Raigarh, to the Collector, wherein it was stated that the appellant-Club had paid rent of 1 per month till the year 2030, but it was required to pay 992 per month from July, 1979 to March, 2011, aggregating to 3,77,571. This letter was relied upon to buttress the argument that the appellant-Club was a tenant. However, the said letter itself stated that Raigarh Club had been ‘licensed’ to remain in possession of the subject land.

“Therefore, the mere use of the word ‘rent’ in the said letter would not be sufficient to infer that the appellant-Club was a lessee in possession of the subject premises, whereby it could claim any rights under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and more particularly, the protection of Section 106 thereof”, the Bench affirmed.

The Top Court also noticed that the deed of license, if any, was never produced before the Court, whereby it could be ascertained as to what was the length of the notice period to which the licensee thereunder was entitled to before being evicted. “In the absence of such documentary proof, the appellants had no legs to stand upon and failed to put forth a tenable case in the eyes of law”, the Bench added.

Thus, finding that no error had been committed either by the Judge or by the Division Bench in disallowing the claim of the appellants, the Bench dismissed the appeal.