This Division Bench dismissal special appeal held that the Single Judge correctly relied on Prabhariadhikari's case. It affirmed that tenancy in government premises is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, requiring proper notice for termination to prevent classification as unauthorized occupancy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:2636-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 569/2014
State And Anr.
----Appellant
Versus
Bal Kishan And Ors.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. K. Acharya
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Order
17/01/2024
(2 of 2)
[2024:RJ-JD:2636-DB]
[SAW-569/2014]
unauthorized possession as per the definition of unauthorised occupants under Section 2 (e) of the Act of 1964. The tenancy is to be determined in the manner provided under Transfer of Property Act. The Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Jahoor Ahmed reported in AIR 1973 SC 2520 held that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act relating to the determination of tenancy under Sections 106 and 111 becomes applicable to the Government promises. Thus the tenancy of the respondent tenants could not have been determined except as providing under Sections 106 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of J. I. Manufacturing Company. In the instant case the notice dated 03.07.1980 was not of clear thirty days, and therefore, the tenancy has not been terminated or determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In view of this the tenant respondent can not described as unauthorised occupants. The learned Single Judge has rightly up held the view taken by the learned District Judge.”
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
97-AjaySingh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge committed any illegality in dismissing the writ petition relying on the Division Bench decision in Prabhariadhikari's case.
Whether the tenancy could be determined without serving a clear thirty-day notice as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prabhariadhikari & Anr. Vs. Shri Jamsher Ali & Ors.Relied on¶13141520
Prabhariadhikari & Anr. Vs. Shri Jamsher Ali & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1050/1998)
State of U.P. vs. Jahoor AhmedReferred¶19
State of U.P. vs. Jahoor Ahmed reported in AIR 1973 SC 2520 · Who else cites this
J. I. Manufacturing CompanyReferred¶19
J. I. Manufacturing Company
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State
Bal Kishan
Vijay Bishnoi
Rajendra Prakash Soni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
