Commercial Suit – Maintainability – Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of Commercial Courts Act – Decree Upheld – The appellant challenged the commercial nature of the dispute on ground that the rental amount was below threshold and not commercial – Held: The tenancy pertained to a commercial shop and dispute arose from lease of immovable property used in trade or commerce – Suit maintainable as a commercial dispute [Paras 14–16].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Attornment by Tenant – Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act – Relationship Established – Appellant argued absence of attornment with new owner – Held: Attornment not necessary – Transferee steps into shoes of original lessor by operation of law – Registered sale deed sufficient to establish ownership and right to seek eviction – Reliance placed on Supreme Court judgment in Gopi @ Govardhannath v. Ballabh Vyas, (2022) 19 SCC 204 [Paras 18–22].

Applicability of Rent Control Act – Rent Less than ₹3500 – Burden Not Discharged – Appellant Claimed Protection under DRC Act – Held: Mere assertion of low rent insufficient – Burden to prove rent on tenant – Contradictory versions given under oath – No proof from income tax, bank statements, or rent receipts – Court found monthly rent exceeded ₹3500 based on plaintiff's evidence and tenant's admissions [Paras 25–29].

Framing of Issues – Clubbing of Issues – Procedural Irregularity – Held: Clubbing of issues without distinct treatment contrary to Order XIV CPC – While not fatal to judgment, such practice is improper and should be avoided in future [Paras 30–31].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court Judgment Affirmed – Finding no merit in contentions raised, the appeal was dismissed confirming the decree for possession, arrears, mesne profits, and injunction against tenant [Para 33].

Civil Law – Recovery and Mortgage Suit – Loan of ₹50 Lakhs – Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds – Preliminary Decree Passed – Defendant borrowed ₹50 lakhs and created equitable mortgage by depositing original title deeds – Defendant acknowledged debt through reply notice agreeing to repay within 30 days – Upon failure, suit filed for recovery and sale of secured property – Held: Plaintiff proved loan and security through oral and documentary evidence – Defendants failed to contest post demise of original borrower – Suit decreed with liberty to seek sale of mortgaged property [Paras 2, 8, 12].

Limitation – Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds – Article 62 of Limitation Act – Suit Held Within Limitation – Though loan transaction dated 12.04.2011, limitation extended by acknowledgment of liability in reply dated 27.12.2017 – Mortgage suits governed by 12-year limitation – Suit filed in 2021 held within time – Plea of limitation rejected [Paras 12(b), 13(a)].

Admissibility of Evidence – Mortgage Agreement on Insufficient Stamp – Admitted – Reliance on judicial precedents supporting minimal stamping for evidentiary purpose in recovery suits – Original title deeds, agreement and acknowledgment admitted and proved – Defendants’ contention of blank signed papers not supported by evidence – Held: No bar to admissibility of loan agreement and deposit letter [Paras 9, 12(c), 13].

Decision – Preliminary Decree Granted – Defendants directed to pay ₹1,21,25,000 with interest at contractual rate within 8 weeks – In default, plaintiff permitted to apply for final decree and sale of suit property – Costs awarded to plaintiff [Para 15].

Civil Law - Eviction Suit – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Sections 5, 8, and 21 of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy Act, 2001 – Eviction Suit Dismissed – Plaintiffs sought eviction on grounds of default, nuisance, and reasonable requirement – Trial Court decreed eviction without considering statutory jurisdictional bar – Held: The civil court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction as the issue of Thika tenancy was pending and later conclusively decided by the Thika Controller – Civil Court's decree is a nullity – Suit liable to be dismissed for lack of inherent jurisdiction [Paras 21–26, 45–54, 68–72].

Striking Out of Defence – Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – No Automatic Bar – Defence not struck out before final adjudication – Trial Court proceeded to decide all issues on merits – Held: In absence of prior order under Section 7(3), defence remains – Jurisdictional issues had to be decided before proceeding to trial – The failure vitiated the trial court’s decree [Paras 29–32, 42–44].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Disputed Relationship – Effect on Section 7 Compliance – Dispute raised on existence of tenancy – Held: A defendant who denies tenancy may not be required to comply with Section 7(1) or (2) as the provision applies to 'tenant', not 'defendant' – Court must decide landlord-tenant relationship before invoking Section 7(3) – View supported by binding Division Bench judgment in Synthetic Plywood Industries case – Ratio unchanged under 1997 Act [Paras 36–41].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Thika Controller's Order Considered – Appeal Allowed – During appeal, certified order of Thika Controller adjudicating defendant as Thika Tenant was produced – Held: Court can look into such evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 – The order reinforces bar under 2001 Act and nullifies civil court’s jurisdiction [Paras 62–67].

Applicability of Thika Tenancy Act, 1981 vs. 2001 – Section 27 of 2001 Act – 2001 Act Applies – Plaintiffs claimed rights accrued under 1981 Act – Held: 1981 Act did not confer right of eviction – Such rights flow from tenancy laws like 1997 Act – Section 27 only protects existing liabilities or privileges – Since eviction suit filed in 2013, 2001 Act applies [Paras 57–61].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Civil Court Decree Set Aside – Eviction Suit Dismissed – The trial court acted without jurisdiction – Remand order of First Appellate Court also erroneous and academic – Decree and remand order set aside and eviction suit dismissed outright for want of jurisdiction [Paras 70–73].

Service Law - Fraudulent Appointment – Use of Forged Documents – Appointment Cancelled - The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2010 but his appointment was cancelled in 2022 on the grounds that forged educational documents and identity were used – The Court found discrepancies in the petitioner’s PAN, Aadhar, B.T.C. Certificate, and academic documents, indicating impersonation – Verification by police revealed that no person by petitioner’s claimed name resided at the stated address – Held: Petitioner’s appointment was obtained through fraud, hence void ab initio, and liable to cancellation without need for departmental enquiry [Paras 2-4, 24-34].

Natural Justice – Scope in Fraudulent Appointment Cases – No Enquiry Required - The petitioner alleged non-service of show cause notice and violation of principles of natural justice – The Court held that where fraud is evident, principles of natural justice need not be applied rigidly and no detailed departmental enquiry is necessary – Citing various precedents, it was reiterated that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and appointments based on fraud cannot be sustained [Paras 18-23, 26, 33].

Eligibility and Misrepresentation – Name Discrepancies Across Records – Fraud Proven - The petitioner failed to explain discrepancies in his name across different records such as “Kamlesh,” “Kamlesh Kumar,” and “Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari” – Misuse of another individual’s certificates was established through investigation – Held: The mismatch and impersonation confirm fraudulent entry into service, disentitling petitioner to any equitable relief [Paras 28-32].

Relief – Appointment Void Ab Initio – No Protection or Reinstatement - The petitioner was not entitled to salary or reinstatement – Court reaffirmed that fraudulent appointments do not confer any right, and disciplinary proceedings under Article 311 or service rules are unnecessary in such cases – Held: Impugned order cancelling appointment and recovery of salary is lawful and does not warrant interference [Paras 35-37].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC – Acquittal – Appellant convicted by Trial Court for cruelty and abetment of suicide of wife – Deceased gave two versions: (i) complaint to police jamadar (Exh. 55) shortly after the incident citing a domestic quarrel and statement by husband “if you want to die, burn yourself”, and (ii) Dying Declaration before Executive Magistrate (Exh. 34) alleging regular beatings – Court found Exh. 55 to be more reliable and immediate, while Exh. 34 suffered from procedural lapses and lacked credibility – No corroboration for consistent cruelty or intent to instigate suicide – Held: Mere words uttered in quarrel without mens rea not sufficient to constitute abetment – Prosecution failed to prove charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1, 4, 11.4, 17, 21, 23, 27.2, 33, 34].

Dying Declaration – Evidentiary Value – Deceased’s Dying Declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate (Exh. 34) within 13 minutes, based on cyclostyle form, lacking identification of thumb impression or medical endorsement of mental fitness – Doctor who signed not traced nor examined – Court found DD suspicious and lacking trustworthiness – In contrast, complaint to PW-12 Police Jamadar (Exh. 55) found to be more immediate, coherent and credible – Held: Exh. 34 does not inspire confidence; Exh. 55 can be treated as dying declaration under Section 32 of Evidence Act [Paras 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17.1, 21, 22, 28].

Abetment of Suicide – Mens Rea and Instigation – Alleged abetment based on husband’s statement “if you want to die, burn yourself” during domestic quarrel – Deceased committed self-immolation – No evidence of continuous cruelty or instigation with intent – Court referred to Sanju v. State of MP and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh – Held: Mere utterance in heat of moment without intention or active instigation insufficient to attract Section 306 IPC – No offence of abetment made out [Paras 4, 27.2, 33].

Cruelty under Section 498A IPC – No Proof of Persistent Harassment – Prosecution failed to prove continuous physical or mental cruelty – Neighbours turned hostile and denied witnessing quarrels – No evidence of dowry demand or coercive conduct – Dying Declaration Exh. 34 mentioning daily beatings found unreliable – Held: Prosecution failed to establish cruelty as per legal definition under Section 498A IPC [Paras 3.1, 4.3, 17, 24, 26, 32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Record and proceedings to be returned to trial court [Para 34].

Land Acquisition  – Reference under Section 18 – Rejection by Reference Court Reversed – Compensation Enhanced – The appellant challenged the rejection of a reference filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that it was time-barred and also questioned the compensation determined by the Collector at ₹479.15 per acre – The High Court held that the appellant had no actual or constructive knowledge of the award until February 1989 and filed the reference within six months thereafter – It further held that the Collector erred in relying on the lowest exemplar – Compensation was revised to ₹8,784.77 per acre – Appellant also found entitled to statutory benefits under the Amending Act No. 68 of 1984, including solatium at 30%, additional compensation at 12% p.a., and enhanced interest at 15% p.a. – Appeal allowed – Reference Court’s judgment set aside [Paras 1, 19-24, 35, 38, 40, 42].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act – Reference held within limitation – Appellant proved that he had no notice or knowledge of the award before February 1989 – Respondents failed to lead any evidence to prove otherwise – Held: Reference made on 03.03.1989 was within limitation under Section 18 as interpreted by the Supreme Court – Dismissal by the reference court was erroneous [Paras 19-24].

Compensation – Determination based on Exemplar – Preference for Highest Exemplar – Held: Collector’s reliance on lowest exemplar dated 20.07.1979 unjustified – Exemplar dated 29.09.1977, though two years prior, showed higher per acre consideration of ₹8,784.77 and was for a similar area and type of land – Appellant held entitled to compensation at that rate – Collector and reference court both erred in their approach [Paras 25-31, 35].

Soil Quality and Land Use – Irrigation and Proximity – Evidence showed appellant's land was fertile, irrigated, and yielded multiple crops – Collector failed to consider productive nature and comparable market value – Held: Land's true value not reflected in award – Compensation revised accordingly [Paras 30-31, 34].

Statutory Benefits – Amending Act No. 68 of 1984 – Additional Benefits Granted – Though Collector’s award was passed prior to the amendment, reference court's decision was post-amendment – Held: Appellant entitled to solatium @30%, additional compensation @12% per annum, and enhanced interest @15% per annum under Section 28 of the Act – Benefits applicable to enhanced compensation awarded by the Court [Paras 39-40].

Appeal Allowed – Judgment and Order of Reference Court Set Aside – Held: Reference was filed within limitation – Compensation enhanced to ₹8,784.77 per acre – Appellant entitled to statutory benefits under amended provisions – Respondents failed to disprove appellant’s claims – No order as to costs [Paras 42-43].

Tenancy Law - Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Section 11(3) of Rent Control Act – Appeal Dismissed - Landlords sought eviction for starting a steel and cement business in the tenanted premises – Both Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority found the need bona fide – Tenant challenged findings on grounds of landlord affluence, poor access road, and absence of building plan – Supreme Court held that similar objections were rejected earlier in related R.C.Rev. Nos. 41 and 49 of 2023 – Held: Challenge unsustainable; eviction rightly granted [Paras 2-5].

Comparative Hardship – Tenant Failed to Seek Protection Under Second Proviso – No Relief - The tenant failed to take steps under the second proviso to Section 11(3) to claim protection based on comparative hardship – Court held that such omission disentitles the tenant from any equitable consideration – Held: No case made for interference in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 4-5].

Consistency in Judicial Findings – Identical Objections Previously Rejected – No Differentiation - The Court noted that eviction orders in similar cases from the same premises were upheld in earlier revisions – Identical objections of tenant had already been considered and rejected – Held: No reason to deviate when facts and grounds remain unchanged [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Revision Dismissed – Six Months’ Time Granted to Vacate Premises - Although revision was dismissed on merits, Court granted six months’ time to vacate subject to conditions – Arrears to be paid within four weeks and rent to continue till actual surrender – Undertaking to vacate to be filed before Rent Control Court/Execution Court [Para 5].

Criminal Law  – Conviction for Repeated Rape of Minor – Testimony of Prosecutrix Reliable – Conviction Upheld – The prosecutrix, minor step-daughter of the appellant’s live-in partner, alleged repeated acts of rape over two years at two residences – The Trial Court convicted the appellant based on her consistent and credible testimony – Held: Her version was corroborated by medical evidence (torn hymen), FIR, and statements – The defence theory of consensual relationship and false implication was rejected – Conviction under Section 376 IPC upheld [Paras 1–13].

Evidentiary Value – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – No Corroboration Required – The Court reiterated that a conviction under Section 376 IPC can be based solely on the unimpeached, consistent testimony of the prosecutrix – Cited Supreme Court rulings affirming that corroboration is a matter of prudence, not law – Absence of injuries not fatal – The prosecutrix’s evidence found trustworthy and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 10.1, 11–12].

Sentence Reduction – Mitigating Factors Considered – Long Pendency, Family Hardship, Good Conduct – Though conviction was upheld, sentence reduced from 10 years to 6 years RI – The Court noted: (a) 21 years had passed since the incident, (b) appellant is sole earner with three minor daughters, (c) nearly 5 years of sentence already undergone with no misuse of liberty and satisfactory jail conduct – Held: Sentence modified in light of mitigating factors, while emphasising that offence remains serious [Paras 14–15].

Decision – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Modified to 6 Years RI – Appellant directed to surrender within 3 days – Trial Court to ensure compliance – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 16–19].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 465, 468, 471, 409, and 420 of the IPC - Section 13(1)(c) read with 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act - Serious Allegations of Corruption – Prima Facie Case Established – Bail Denied - The petitioner, a former writer at the Traffic Enforcement Unit, Muvattupuzha, was accused of misappropriating ₹20,90,750/- through falsification of expenditure vouchers and bank entries – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail on grounds of personal hardship and alleged bias – The Court, upon detailed scrutiny of case diary, statements of multiple bank officials, and recovery of incriminating documents, held that a strong prima facie case existed – Held: No exceptional circumstances shown; anticipatory bail denied [Paras 1-16].

Evidence – Testimony of Bank Staff – Direct Attribution to Accused – Bail Justifiably Refused - Multiple officials from State Bank of India confirmed that remittances from the police department were handled solely by the petitioner – Statements consistently proved manipulation of duplicate and triplicate vouchers post-bank seal – Recovery of 400+ vouchers and cash books from her residence during judicial search corroborated allegations – Held: Direct role in remittance and manipulation stands established for custodial interrogation [Paras 8-13].

Financial Discrepancy – Lifestyle and Income Mismatch – Chitty Remittances Unexplained - Petitioner’s net salary was ₹21,000 with EMI liabilities – Yet she participated in multiple chitties and incurred substantial expenses – Annexure A8 bank statement failed to show alternate legitimate sources of such funds – Held: Unaccounted funds raised suspicion, supporting prosecution case of embezzlement [Paras 10, 13-14].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity for Handwriting Samples – Grant of Bail Would Hinder Investigation - Investigation required collecting handwriting and signature samples for forensic comparison – Court held custodial interrogation necessary to trace fund origin, examine falsified documents – Held: Bail at this stage would impair effective prosecution in a serious corruption case [Paras 13-15].

Corruption Cases – Grant of Bail Only in Exceptional Circumstances – No Falsity or Political Bias Alleged - Relying on Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab [2025 KHC 6219], Court reiterated that anticipatory bail in corruption cases is to be granted only where false implication or political vendetta is apparent – Held: Neither ground made out in present case – Bail refused [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Denied – Direction to Cooperate with Investigation - Application dismissed with direction to petitioner to surrender before Investigating Officer immediately – On failure, liberty granted to officer to proceed with arrest as per law [Para 16].