Suo Moto Appeal – Tenancy Law – Applicability of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 vs. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Eviction Decree Granted – The dispute centered around whether the respondent was a premises tenant under the 1997 Act or a lessee under the Transfer of Property Act – The key issue was whether AC charges, being an essential component for enjoyment of the premises, formed part of the “rent” to determine if the tenancy exceeded the Rs. 10,000/- ceiling under Section 3(f) of the 1997 Act – Held: AC charges are an integral part of rent based on undertakings before the Supreme Court, the consistent course of conduct, and the essential nature of AC to the tenancy – Consequently, the tenancy is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, not the 1997 Act – Trial court's dismissal of the eviction suit reversed – Decree of eviction granted – Respondent’s cross-objection on technical grounds also dismissed [Paras 1-86].

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – Bar on Second Suit – Not Applicable – The court held that the second eviction suit was not barred despite pendency and withdrawal of the earlier suit – The cause of action in the second suit was based on the rent exceeding the ceiling limit of the 1997 Act, triggering applicability of the Transfer of Property Act, which was distinct from the earlier suit based on the 1956 Tenancy Act – Hence, Order II Rule 2 and res judicata did not apply [Paras 27-39].

Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC – Company Representation – No Bar – The objection that the suit was not maintainable for lack of proper authorization of the person signing the plaint was rejected – The court held that any director able to depose to the facts could sign and verify pleadings – The absence of an authorization resolution was a curable defect that was not raised before the trial court and could not be entertained at the appellate stage [Paras 40-47].

Definition of Rent – Inclusion of AC Charges – Rent Determination under Section 3(f) of the 1997 Act – The court held that AC charges, being mandatory for the use and enjoyment of the tenanted premises and arising from a binding undertaking before the Supreme Court, were an essential part of rent – Since AC was centrally provided and inseparable from the premises' use, the charges were not ancillary but integral – As a result, the total rent exceeded Rs. 10,000/- per month, taking the tenancy outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 [Paras 48-79].

Applicability of Transfer of Property Act – Eviction Valid – Once the tenancy was held to be outside the protection of the 1997 Act, it was governed by the Transfer of Property Act – The termination notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was valid – Plaintiff entitled to eviction on this basis [Paras 78-80].

Decision – Appeals F.A. 156 of 2022 and F.A.T. 66 of 2017 allowed – Impugned judgment and decrees dated 06.01.2017 set aside – Plaintiff’s eviction suit decreed – Defendant’s declaratory suit dismissed – Cross-objection COT 33 of 2018 dismissed – No order as to costs – Separate decrees directed to be drawn accordingly – Limited assurance granted by the appellant to not execute eviction for one month – No formal stay granted [Paras 80-86].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance under Section 24 HMA – Award of Interim Maintenance to Wife and Child – Decree Affirmed – The appellant challenged the Family Court’s order awarding pendente lite maintenance of ₹10,000/month to the wife and ₹15,000/month to the minor child – Appellant contended concealment of income and false claims of unemployment by respondent wife – Held: Mere qualifications or prior income do not negate entitlement to maintenance – No material placed before Family Court to prove respondent’s current employment – Order granting maintenance upheld [Paras 1–3, 8–10, 14–15].

Earning Capacity vs Actual Earnings – Wife’s Qualifications Not a Ground to Deny Maintenance – The Court observed that capability to earn and actual earning are distinct – A wife who has left her job for child care responsibilities cannot be denied maintenance on the sole ground of qualification – Maintenance rightly granted based on financial disparity and cost of living – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9–10].

Personal Liabilities – Loans Not Deductible While Determining Maintenance – Appellant’s claim of heavy personal liabilities and loans was rejected – Held: Personal or investment-related loans are taken for self-benefit and do not reduce obligation to maintain spouse and child – Family Court correctly applied legal principle and considered liabilities while determining maintenance [Paras 11–13].

Dependents of Appellant – Claim of Responsibility Toward Parents Rejected – The appellant claimed financial burden due to liability of maintaining his mother – Held: Mother can be considered dependent on father or daughter, both of whom earn separately – No case made to reduce maintenance on this ground [Paras 11–12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Family Court’s order awarding maintenance to wife and child found just, reasonable, and based on facts – No infirmity found in assessment of income or liabilities – Challenge to interim order on grounds of concealment or pending applications under Section 340 CrPC not maintainable in this appeal – Appeal devoid of merit and dismissed [Paras 14–15].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Oral Relinquishment and Validity of Sale Deed – Claim of oral relinquishment by the plaintiffs and oral partition pleaded by the defendants was not supported by acceptable evidence – Defendants failed to establish that the suit property was purchased out of ancestral funds or that there was any oral partition and relinquishment by the plaintiffs – Held: Sale deed in favour of the eighth defendant valid only to the extent of 1/6th share of the third defendant who executed it – Plaintiffs and eighth defendant entitled to 3/6th shares collectively – Trial Court's preliminary decree upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paragraphs 11-19].

Burden of Proof – Oral Partition – Burden of proof lies on the defendants alleging oral partition and relinquishment – Absence of necessary witnesses and lack of documentary evidence resulted in failure to prove such oral relinquishment – Held: Defendants failed to discharge burden; plaintiffs entitled to claim their rightful share through partition [Paragraphs 17-19].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Limited Protection – The eighth defendant's claim of bona fide purchase did not defeat the plaintiffs’ partition rights – Sale deed binding only to the extent of the seller’s (third defendant’s) 1/6th share – Held: Partition decree remains unaffected by subsequent sale – Plaintiffs’ 3/6th share protected [Paragraphs 13-19].

Decision of the Judgment – Appeal Dismissed – Preliminary Decree Confirmed – High Court affirmed the Trial Court’s preliminary decree granting partition of 3/6th share to plaintiffs and eighth defendant, declaring that sale deed was valid only for 1/6th share of the third defendant – Appeal dismissed without costs [Paragraphs 19-20].

Civil Writ - Quashing of Legislative Committee Directions – Allegation of Encroachment – Writ Petition Allowed – The petitioner challenged directions dated 08.03.2017 issued by the Petitions Committee of Karnataka Legislative Council based on allegations of encroachment of Rajakaluve and public road by third party complainant – The Court held that subsequent Division Bench judgment in WP No.47747/2017 and connected cases, categorically found no such encroachment – Held: Direction issued by Committee stood nullified by binding judicial finding – Direction quashed [Paras 2-4].

Binding Effect of Judicial Findings – Scope under Articles 226 and 227 – The Court reaffirmed that when Division Bench of High Court gives categorical findings on factual matters, including inspection and reports from competent authorities, such findings bind subordinate authorities and committees – Any contrary action stands vitiated – Writ Petition rightly allowed to prevent conflicting determinations [Paras 3-4].

Effect of Public Interest Litigation Outcome – Precedence over Committee Recommendations – Proceedings before the Division Bench in related PILs conclusively determined absence of encroachment in Sy.No.83/2, supported by reports of Assistant Executive Engineer – Court observed Committee could not override such judicial pronouncement through administrative directions [Paras 3-4].

Final Decision – Direction Quashed – Writ petition allowed – Direction dated 08.03.2017 by Respondent No.1 Committee quashed – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of as infructuous [Para 4].

Successive Regular Bail – Sections 8(C), 20(B)(ii)(b), and 29 of the NDPS Act – Successive Bail Application Dismissed – The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with possession of 9.982 kg of ganja under the NDPS Act – The earlier bail application was withdrawn with liberty reserved for refiling in case of delay in trial – The Court found no change in circumstances justifying a successive bail application – Noted that the trial is proceeding without delay – Applicant has 14 criminal antecedents, including two under the NDPS Act, and played a principal role in the offence – Held: The applicant failed to make out a case for bail – Application dismissed and Rule discharged [Paras 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13].

NDPS Act – Conscious Possession – Applicability of Animus Possidendi – Plea of Non-possession Rejected – Held: Contraband of 9.982 kg ganja recovered from vehicle under control of the applicant – Mere lack of physical possession does not negate culpability – Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan (2021) 10 SCC 100, which clarified that ‘possession’ includes knowledge and control with animus possidendi – Argument of non-recovery from personal possession rejected [Para 8].

Successive Bail – No Change in Circumstance – Legal Principle – Held: Successive bail applications are maintainable only if there is a significant change in circumstances – Mere passage of time or filing of charge sheet does not constitute change – Cited Apex Court rulings in Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka (2017) 5 SCC 406 and Navin Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 2 SCC (Cri.) 809 – Filing of charge sheet does not dilute the seriousness of allegations – Successive bail cannot be entertained routinely [Para 9].

Bail Principles – Factors Considered – NDPS and Criminal Antecedents – Held: While considering bail, the court must consider the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, role of the accused, past conduct, possibility of tampering with evidence, and larger public interest – Cited CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy (2013) 7 SCC 452 and Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9 SCC 446 – Given the applicant’s multiple past offences and repeat nature of NDPS violations, bail rightly rejected [Paras 10-11].

Parity with Co-accused – Not Applicable – Role of Applicant More Serious – Held: Bail granted to co-accused does not apply when the applicant's role is distinct and graver – Co-accused were granted bail because their involvement was limited to driving or assisting, whereas the applicant is alleged to be the main supplier of contraband – Past criminal history further disentitles him to claim parity – Parity principle rejected [Paras 7, 12].

Successive Bail – Judicial Discipline – Guiding Principles – Held: Cited Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan (2002) 3 SCC 598 – While the right to make successive bail applications exists, the Court is duty-bound to examine whether new grounds or change in circumstances justify taking a view different from earlier decisions – No such grounds exist in this case [Para 12].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Considering the seriousness of the offence, past criminal antecedents, absence of any change in circumstances, and the risk of reoffending, the Court dismissed the successive bail application – Directed the trial court to expedite the trial on day-to-day basis and to provide legal aid if the applicant does not engage a private lawyer [Paras 13-14].

Civil Writ – Challenge to MRT Order – Section 88C and 32G of Maharashtra Tenancy Act – Writ Petition Allowed – The petitioner, tenant of agricultural land, was declared as deemed purchaser of 5/8th share by the Additional Tahsildar and Assistant Collector — MRT erroneously reversed these concurrent findings ignoring the legal effect of Section 88C proceedings that limited the landlord’s right to only 3/8th share — MRT exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 76 by reappreciating facts rather than correcting legal errors — Held: Orders of the Revenue Authorities restored and MRT’s order set aside [Paras 1-18].

Tenancy Law – Effect of Section 88C – Once exemption under Section 88C is granted to landlord only for part of the land, the tenant automatically becomes deemed purchaser of the balance land – Finding of the MRT contrary to settled legal position – Ignoring the finality of 88C proceedings amounts to a patent error [Paras 8-13].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 76 – Revisional powers are limited to correcting errors of law, procedural lapses, or failure to decide legal issues – MRT cannot act as an appellate authority to reassess facts or substitute factual findings – MRT exceeded jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and interfering with concurrent factual findings of the revenue authorities [Paras 14-15].

Adoption Dispute – Not Relevant to Tenancy Determination – Registered adoption deed of petitioner upheld by civil court – Challenge to adoption pending in civil court does not affect tenancy rights under Section 32G – MRT wrongly considered this issue beyond its jurisdiction [Para 14].

Parallel Proceedings – Impermissible – Civil suit filed by landlord claiming exclusive ownership after conclusion of 88C tenancy proceedings is not tenable – Filing of multiple proceedings for same cause of action disapproved – MRT failed to appreciate this aspect [Para 10].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – MRT’s order dated 01.01.1998 set aside – Orders dated 10.07.1990 by Additional Tahsildar and 25.01.1991 by Assistant Collector restored – Rights of respondents to pursue civil remedies, if any, kept open – Petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 16-18].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 354A(i), 354D(1)(i) of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act – Acquittal Ordered – The accused was convicted by the Trial Court for holding the victim’s hand and uttering “I love you” – The High Court held that mere holding of hand and expression of love without any overt sexual act, demand for sexual favour, or repeated conduct does not constitute offences under IPC Sections 354A(i), 354D(1)(i), or Section 8 of the POCSO Act – No evidence of sexual intent or stalking – Conviction quashed and accused acquitted [Paras 1-42].

POCSO Act – Proof of Age – Admissibility of Birth Certificate – Section 17 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act and Section 35 of Evidence Act – Age of victim proved – Birth certificate produced from competent authority showing victim’s date of birth as 12.05.1999 held admissible as primary evidence under Section 77 of the Evidence Act – No cross-examination challenging age – Held: Prosecution proved victim was minor at time of offence [Paras 11-16].

Sexual Harassment – Section 354A IPC – Essential Ingredients – Sexual Intent – Mere utterance of “I Love You” and holding hand without any unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures or demand for sexual favours does not constitute sexual harassment – No evidence of sexually coloured remarks – Held: Offence under Section 354A IPC not made out [Paras 23-26, 31-37].

Stalking – Section 354D IPC – Requirement of Repeated Contact – A single instance of following or interaction without repeated acts is insufficient to constitute stalking – No evidence of following to foster personal interaction despite disinterest – Held: Charge under Section 354D IPC unsustainable [Paras 29-30].

POCSO Act – Sexual Assault – Requirement of Physical Contact with Sexual Intent – Section 7 and Punishment under Section 8 of POCSO Act – No allegation of touching private parts or other acts indicating sexual assault – Uttering “I Love You” by itself does not establish sexual intent – No physical act reflecting sexual overture – Held: Offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act not established [Paras 31-39].

Interpretation of Sexual Intent – Reliance on Bandu Vitthalrao Borwar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 16128 – Expression of “I Love You” in absence of gestures, physical touch or overt sexual conduct is not sufficient to prove sexual intent – Intention is to be determined from overall circumstances – Held: No evidence to conclude existence of sexual intent [Paras 35-37].

Appeal – Acquittal – Conviction set aside – Judgment of Trial Court erroneous for misapplication of Sections 354A and 354D IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act – Accused acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 42].

Partition Suit – Succession Rights of Heirs of Nawab of Bhopal – Applicability of Personal Law vs. Merger Agreement – Judgment Set Aside – The plaintiffs claimed partition of private properties of Nawab Hamidullah Khan post his demise in 1960, asserting succession as per Muslim Personal Law – Trial Court dismissed suits relying on Allahabad High Court judgment (AIR 1997 All 122) – Held: The Allahabad High Court judgment was overruled by Supreme Court in Talat Fatima Hasan v. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan (2020) 15 SCC 655 – The Trial Court’s judgment, being founded on an overruled precedent and without evaluating the full evidence, cannot stand – Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside, suits remanded for fresh decision on merits [Paras 3-4, 18-21].

Succession of Rulers' Private Properties – Clause VII of Bhopal Merger Agreement – Applicability of Personal Law Deferred – The respondents contended succession to private property passes solely to the successor of throne under Clause VII of the Merger Agreement, excluding other legal heirs – The Court observed the issue requires fresh adjudication especially after Supreme Court clarified the distinction between succession to Gaddi and private properties – Matter remanded to Trial Court for proper examination including admissibility of fresh evidence [Paras 7, 14, 21].

Power of Appellate Court to Remand – Applicability of Order 14 Rule 23A CPC – The High Court invoked Order 14 Rule 23A CPC observing the trial court decided the matter without considering essential legal aspects, particularly in light of a binding precedent now overturned – Directed remand for comprehensive reconsideration including potential fresh evidence, directing trial court to conclude within one year due to pendency since 1999 [Paras 18-21].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Judgment and decree dated 14.02.2000 set aside – Suits remanded back to District Court, Bhopal for fresh adjudication expeditiously within one year – Pending applications disposed with liberty to raise all issues before trial court [Paras 21-26].

E-Auction – Earnest Money Deposit – Validity of Auction Process – Petitioner challenged the auction conducted by HSVP, particularly the demand of 25% EMD of the reserve price, contrary to the policies that fixed EMD at 5%. The petitioner contended that this violated the applicable policy and was tailored to favor certain bidders. The Court held that the auction process, including the Swiss challenge method and the EMD requirement, was within the administrative discretion of HSVP, provided it did not violate statutory provisions or exhibit mala fide intent. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no evidence of arbitrariness or bias in the HSVP's conduct [Paras 1-37].

Judicial Review – Administrative Discretion – Scope – The Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in commercial matters, particularly in policy decisions involving tenders or auctions by state instrumentalities. Interference is warranted only in cases of manifest illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fide. The decision to adopt the Swiss challenge method and the higher EMD was based on administrative considerations and aimed at ensuring a transparent and competitive bidding process [Paras 22-32].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – The Court upheld the auction process and directed that the HSVP’s decisions regarding the auction terms and conditions were justified and in line with established legal principles governing state auctions and tenders [Para 37].