Tenancy Act – Surrender of Tenancy – Mandatory Notice – Requirement of three months’ notice to the landlord and the Special Officer for a valid surrender – Surrender takes effect only after acceptance by the Special Officer, ensuring the surrender is voluntary and genuine – Failure to follow prescribed procedure invalidates the surrender – Findings of lower courts on surrender held untenable [Paras 36-37].

Right to Purchase – Cultivating Tenant’s Priority – Tenant’s right to purchase the land leased under Section 15 – Tribunal upheld appellant's claim based on the recorded compromise recognizing subsisting tenancy – Evidence of part payment towards purchase considered valid – Lower courts’ findings on non-subsistence of tenancy reversed [Paras 38-39].

Procedure for Eviction – Non-Payment of Rent – Necessity of specific pleadings on rent default – No evidence of demand for arrears by landlord – Tribunal's findings on tenant's right to purchase supported by evidence – Lower courts’ decisions set aside [Para 39].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Order of Tribunal restored – Right to purchase the property under Section 15 upheld – Appreciation recorded for the assistance of amicus curiae [Paras 40].

Constitution of India – Article 14 – Arbitrary Policies – High Court held the State's "First Come First Serve" basis for granting licences for group housing colonies violated Article 14 – Supreme Court affirmed, stating such policies must be rational, fair, and transparent – Cancellation of licences upheld as practice was not codified and lacked a legal foundation [Paras 30-40].

Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 – Section 3 – Policy Flaws – The policy did not comply with statutory requirements and was not publicly disclosed – State must ensure non-discriminatory methods for licence allotment, adhering to principles of fairness and transparency in governance [Paras 31-34].

Principle of First Come First Serve – Unfair and Non-Transparent – Supreme Court found the method inherently flawed due to its potential for misuse and lack of rational basis – Practice invalidated as it did not ensure equal opportunity for all applicants – Rejected notion that long-standing practice validated policy [Paras 36-42].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – State to consider all pending and future applications for licences under the 2017 policy, ensuring fairness and transparency [Paras 44-46].

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 – Section 25 – Recovery of Debts – Broad consensus between parties to resolve the matter – Appellants to deposit a further sum of Rs. 5 crores with DRT Jaipur – Respondent allowed to withdraw Rs. 5 crores along with pre-deposit of Rs. 1.53 crores and Rs. 25 lakhs with Recovery Officer – Withdrawal subject to final outcome of pending appeal – DRT directed to expedite final decision within eight weeks – Appeals disposed of on agreed terms [Paras 1-9].

Court Directions:

Appellants to deposit Rs. 5 crores within four weeks without prejudice to rights in pending appeal

Respondents permitted to withdraw Rs. 5 crores, Rs. 1.53 crores pre-deposit, and Rs. 25 lakhs

Withdrawal subject to ultimate outcome of Appeal No. 1/2020

DRT Jaipur to decide Appeal No. 1/2020 within eight weeks

Order of attachment of shares to continue until final disposal

Recovery proceedings stayed until Appeal No. 1/2020 decided

Appeal against pre-deposit order before DRAT stands disposed of [Para 9].

Decision – Appeal disposed of in terms of the consensus – Directions issued to DRT Jaipur for expeditious resolution [Paras 8-9].

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Termination of Daily Wagers – Appellants employed on daily wage basis terminated without compliance with Section 25F – Industrial Tribunal declared termination void and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages – High Court set aside the Award, holding appointments were irregular and not entitled to protection under Section 25F – Supreme Court held termination of workmen, despite irregular appointments, is retrenchment under Section 2(oo) and requires compliance with Section 25F – Reinstatement not automatic; reasonable compensation awarded [Paras 1-32, 36-42].

Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act – Conditions Precedent to Retrenchment – Mandatory compliance required for workmen in continuous service for over 240 days – Non-observance renders termination void – Relief not automatically reinstatement but can be monetary compensation based on case facts [Paras 22-25, 30-31, 33-34].

Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement – Considering nature of service and duration, Supreme Court awarded Rs. 2,50,000/- as lump sum compensation to each appellant instead of reinstatement with back wages – Compensation deemed just and reasonable given the circumstances [Paras 42-44].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Award of Industrial Tribunal modified to grant lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to each appellant within three months [Para 44].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Quashing of Proceedings – Supreme Court observed that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction – The Court emphasized the distinction between a civil dispute and a criminal offense – The High Court erred in dismissing the petition for quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings – The appeal was allowed, and the proceedings were quashed [Paras 1-48].

Penal Code – Sections 406, 419, 420 – Ingredients of Offense – The complaint alleged that the appellant sold flats beyond their share, which was a matter of civil dispute – No fraudulent or dishonest intention was evident at the inception of the transaction – The facts did not disclose the commission of any offense under Sections 406, 419, or 420 IPC – Criminal proceedings should not be used as an instrument of harassment in civil disputes [Paras 27-38].

Judicial Precedents – Abuse of Process – The Court referred to various precedents where it was held that criminal proceedings must not be used to settle civil disputes – Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice – The present case was found to fall within the categories warranting quashing of proceedings as laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] [Paras 39-47].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – FIR No. 185/2016 dated 29.03.2016 and proceedings in C.C. No. 20609 of 2017 on the file of VI Additional CMM Bengaluru quashed [Paras 48-49].

Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958 – Applicability – Exemption for Non-Residential Clubs – The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958, do not apply to non-residential clubs in view of the exemption under Section 3(j) – The term "club" includes associations of individuals with some degree of permanence and corporate identity, pursuing a common aim other than the acquisition of gain – The activities of a non-residential club catering to its members do not fall within the scope of commercial establishments as defined in the Act [Paras 9-27].

Definition and Scope – Non-Residential Club – The Court emphasized that a non-residential club is an establishment that provides services and facilities to its members, distinct from commercial entities that primarily engage in the supply of meals or refreshments for profit – The second respondent club, Bhilai Steel Plant, was found to be a genuine club offering various facilities to its members, including sports and social activities, and thus exempt under Section 3(j) of the Act [Paras 24-38].

Judicial Review – Role of Bye-Laws and Actual Functioning – The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of considering both the bye-laws and the actual functioning of an establishment to determine its nature – In this case, the bye-laws and the functioning of the club supported its classification as a non-residential club exempt from the Act’s provisions – The Court disapproved of the High Court’s interference with the Appellate Authority's findings, which were based on substantial evidence [Paras 36-40].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The judgment of the High Court was upheld, confirming the exemption of the respondent club from the application of the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958, and negating the need for reinstatement or compensation for the appellants under the Act [Paras 42].

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 9A – Change in Service Conditions – Supreme Court held that transferring workmen from Dewas to Chopanki, 900 kms away, violated Section 9A read with Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Such transfers were deemed arbitrary, mala fide, and amounted to victimization – The nature of work and service conditions would change, with workmen becoming supervisors, thus depriving them of the protections under the Industrial Disputes Act [Paras 7-7.4].

Judicial Review – Article 226 vs. Article 227 – The petitions before the High Court were considered under Article 227, making the writ appeals non-maintainable – The Supreme Court emphasized the need to look at the nature of the jurisdiction invoked and the relief sought to determine the appropriate article – The substantive relief sought was quashing and setting aside the Labour Court's award, aligning with Article 227 [Paras 4.1-4.3, 7.9].

Transfer and Victimization – Adverse Impact on Workmen – The transfer orders affected workmen at the fag end of their careers, causing severe personal and professional disruption – The Court found that such transfers were intended to reduce the workforce at Dewas and constituted unfair labour practice, violating the statutory protections for workmen under the Act [Paras 5.1-5.4, 7.1-7.2].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court and Labour Court's findings – Directed the appellant to comply with the Labour Court’s award and provide consequential benefits to the workmen, including arrears of salary and retirement benefits within four weeks – Costs imposed on the appellant [Paras 8-8.1].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Discretionary Relief – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in denying specific performance on the grounds that it is a discretionary relief – Execution of agreement to sell, part sale consideration payment, and plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract were established – Denying specific performance would encourage dishonesty – High Court’s interpretation of Section 20 is incorrect and unsustainable [Paras 10-10.1, 12].

Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act – Readiness and Willingness – The plaintiff made necessary averments in the plaint and proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract – High Court's conclusion on non-compliance with Section 16(c) is contrary to record and law – The conduct of the plaintiff and subsequent actions were in line with the contract terms [Paras 6-6.1, 7].

Discretion under Section 20 – Judicial Exercise – Discretion must be exercised judiciously, soundly, and reasonably – Refusal of specific performance despite established facts would tilt balance unfairly in favor of the defendant, rewarding dishonest conduct – Amendment to Section 10(a) of the Act serves as a guide, emphasizing that specific performance is no longer discretionary [Para 10].

Concurrent Findings – High Court’s Error – High Court improperly interfered with concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court on readiness and willingness – Findings were based on evidence and not perverse – High Court's intervention under Section 100 CPC was unwarranted [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Trial Court’s judgment and decree for specific performance restored – Defendants directed to execute the sale deed and hand over possession within four weeks [Para 12].

Constitutional Law – Right to Equality – Ex-employees of a Mill challenged the denial of plots by State instrumentalities – High Court held treating 318 ex-employees differently from 134 others who received free plots as violative of Article 14 – Emphasized vested right in claiming equality and parity enforceable under Article 226 [Paras 1-14].

Allotment of Quarters – Discrimination – 318 ex-employees vacated quarters as per notice, while 134 stayed – Supreme Court ruled that rewarding unauthorized occupation by allotting plots to 134 ex-employees and denying the same to law-abiding 318 is discriminatory – Orders for equal treatment upheld [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Judgment of learned Single Judge directing allotment of plots to 318 ex-employees upheld – High Court's order set aside – Directed respondents to complete allotment within six months [Para 10].