Summary
The Supreme Court found the appellant’s occupation of a municipal quarter unauthorised from June 1990. He proved neither allotment, acceptance of his alleged auction bid, payment of the price nor another lawful basis of possession. He was directed to vacate within three months and pay occupation damages at Rs.3,000 per month from June 1990 until delivery of possession, within the same period. The municipality could approach the Court for non-compliance.
Issues
- Whether the alleged auction participation established a lawful right to occupy or obtain conveyance of the municipal quarter.
- What directions should govern vacation and damages for occupation.
Held
- No allotment or bid-acceptance letter, payment evidence, contractual relationship or title document established the appellant’s right to enter and remain in the quarter. The documents produced did not bind the municipality or establish lawful possession. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14, 15)
- The appellant failed to establish ownership, tenancy or possession with the owner’s express permission. His occupation from June 1990 was that of a trespasser, attracting liability to vacate and pay damages. (¶¶ 13, 16)
- After hearing counsel on area and likely rent, the Court fixed damages at Rs.3,000 per month from June 1990 until actual delivery of vacant possession, rather than remitting their calculation. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 21)
- The appellant received three months from the order to vacate and pay the damages. For failure to comply, the municipality could seek appropriate orders from the Supreme Court. (¶¶ 20, 22)
Result
Appeals disposed of. Vacation and payment of damages directed within three months; damages fixed at Rs.3,000 monthly from June 1990 until delivery of possession, with liberty to the municipality to approach the Court for non-compliance.