Holding

The Court held that the Commissioner’s authority to attach and sell Sanchaita properties does not invalidate pre‑existing bona‑fide tenancy rights, and vacant possession cannot be granted against such tenants except through normal eviction proceedings.

Summary

The Supreme Court dealt with the aftermath of the Sanchaita Investment Company case, where a Commissioner was appointed to attach and sell properties of the defunct firm. One such property, house No. 52/1/IB, was sold on an "as is where is" basis to Ashim Kumar Mandal and others, who then sought vacant possession. The Paul Brothers and other occupants claimed they were bona‑fide tenants with rights predating the attachment and argued that they could be evicted only through regular legal proceedings. The Court examined whether the Commissioner’s powers under the Supreme Court’s directions extinguished existing tenancy rights and whether the High Court could grant immediate vacant possession. It held that the attachment and sale did not invalidate pre‑existing bona‑fide interests and that the Commissioner could not evict lawful tenants summarily. Consequently, the auction purchasers could obtain possession only by initiating ordinary eviction proceedings. The appeals of Paul Brothers and Phani Bhusan Ghosh were allowed, while those of other claimants were dismissed.

Issues considered

The scope of the Commissioner’s power to attach and sell Sanchaita assets with respect to pre‑existing tenancy rights
Whether attachment and sale of property extinguish bona‑fide tenancy interests created before attachment
Whether the High Court could grant vacant possession to the auction purchaser against lawful tenants
Whether the auction purchaser is entitled to summary eviction of tenants under the Supreme Court’s directions
Whether the claimants are bona‑fide tenants entitled to protection under law

Legislation cited

Subjects

attachmentauctionvacant possessionbona fide tenantSanchaita caseproperty lawsummary evictioncommissioner powerscivil procedure

Judgment

PAUL BROTHERS (TAILORING DIVISION)
A
AND ORS. ETC.
v.
ASHIM KUMAR MANDAL AND ORS. ETC.

APRIL 2, 1990 B

[S. RANGANATHAN AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]

-y Practice and Procedure: Sanchaita case-Directions of Supreme
Court explained.
c
These appeals arose as a sequel to certain directions of this Court
in the famous Sanchaita Investment Company case, which by dint
of tremendous advertisement campaign collected deposits amounting
to several crores of rupees from thousands of depositors spread all
over India, The firm prospered and thereafter tied up and siphoned D
away a sizeable portion of its funds from its coffers for the benefit of
the management personnel by acquiring movable and immovable
properties in the names of the firm, relatives and benamidars.
Then they started making defaults in its obligations to tbe deposi-
tors.
E
The depositors approached the High Court and eventually the \
matter came up to this Court in 1983. With a view to safeguard the
interests of the depositors and ensure that the properties of the firm be
duly identified and full and due benefit of the funds be diverted to its
- )>
coffers, this Court by its order appointed a Commissioner to take F
charge of all the assets, documents, papers of the firm, agents,
sub-agents, transferees and benamidars. Further to enable the
Commissioner to gather all the assets of the firm, he was given powers
to attach all assets and properties which in his prima facie opinion are of
the ownership of the firm or any of its partners. Such assets were to be
put to sale if no objections are received there to within one month from G
the date of attachment. All objections thus received in respect of such
properties were to be forwarded to the Prothonotary of Calcutta High
Court, and a Division Bench of the High Court was to dispose of the
objections on merits. By a further order dated 23rd September, 1985
this Court empowered the Commissioner to remove all unauthorised
H

283
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A persons or trespassers from possession of the property proposed to be
sold, and lhe Commissioner to hand over vacant possession to the right-
ful purcbasers.

One of the properties thus attached by the Commissioner by a
B
public notice was house N. 52/1/IB Surendra Nath Banerjee Road,
Calcutta. It was subsequently brought to sale on "as is and where is
basis". Asit Kumar Mandal and two others purchased this property
and requested the Commissioner to give them vacant possession. Since
the sale was on "as is and where is basis", the Mandals moved
an application before the High Court Division Bench praying for
c the vacant possession of the said property and the same was
granted.

Hence the appellants i.e. Paul Bros and Others, moved two
Special Leave Petitions in this Court and claimed that they were bona
0
fide tenants in the property even under the predecessors-in-interest of
Mahamaya Devi in whose name the property was purchased by
Sanchaita firm and therefore could be evicted only in accordance with
due process of law after full contest, and could not be thrown out iu
summary proceedings just as if they were persons in unauthorised
E possession of the property, or as if they were mere trespassers. On the
other hand the Mandals contended that in terms of the orders of this
Court, and of the Calcutta Division Bench they purchased the property
only on the basis that they would get a perfect title and speedy
possession.

F Allowing the Special Leave Petitions, this Court,

HELD: That the contention of the Mandals is not maintainable
either in principle or on the terms of the directions of this Court. The
attachment and sale in pursuance of this Court's order of the present
G property in question did not have the legal effect of invalidating any
interests created or subsisting in the property by sale, transfer
encumbrance or alienation prior to the attachment. Even the sale was
on "as is and where is basis". The Courts order of 27th September, ~
1983 only empowered the Commissioner to remove all unauthorised
H" persons and trespassers but persons who are in lawful possession of the
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL 285

, property could not be evicted forcibly or summarily. The said order A
~ could not be interpreted to mean that the purchasers would be entitled
to vacant possession through the commissioner even by evicting bona
fide tenants or other encumbrancer or independent out-siders who had
acquired interest for consideration in the property. The object of the
directions was to cut short the proliferation of litigation and to gather in B
expeditiously the assets of Sanchaita. [l'llD-E; 29SH; 296B]

Having regard to the large scale dealings, the special circums-
tances and the desperate situation, the Court made an exception and
made it possible for the Commissioner to get false and frivolous clai-
mants out of the way by a quick procedure because even normally the c
trespassers and unauthorised persons cannot be thrown out except by
recourse to legal proceedings. So this order could not be availed of to
ride rough-shod over the rights and interests of others in the properties
which had been created bona fide. Even third parties who have
acquired real interests in the property either independent of, or even D
through Sanchaita could not be called upon to give up their rights which
would mean to do more than merely realise what rightfully belongs to
Sanchaita that is by conferring a better title than it had in fact acquired
while purchasing those properties. [297B, GI

So in the instant case, considering the materials and evid~nce and E
the records placed before the Court by the claimants/objectors, to prove
that they are not stooges or false claimants but have·bona fide right to
possession, it was held that the auction purchaser could not evict Paul
Brothers and Phani Bhushan Ghose except eviction proceedings in the
normal course and in accordance with law as may be available to them F
against the claimants/objectors. The claim's of the other appellant was
rejected. [297C-D I

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1755-
56 of 1990.
G

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.1989 of the Calcutta
,;;ii., High Court in Matter No. 3737 of 1987.

Dr. Shankar Ghosh, C.S. Vaidyanathan, S.R. Setia, K.V. Vis- H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990] 2 S.C.R.

A wanathan and A.K. Sil for the Appellants.

S.K. Kapoor, P.K. Pillai D.K. Sinha, Mrs. R. Paul and H.K.
Puri for the Respondents.
B
The Judgment of the CouPt was delivered by

RANGANATHAN, J. Leave granted.

c These appeals arise as a sequel to certain directions of this Court
in the famous Sanchaita case. The Sanchaita Investment Company was
a firm which was controlled and run, primarily, by three persons
Samonu Prasad Mukherjee, Biharial Murarka, and Swapan Kumar
Guha. It had been able, by dint of a tremendous advertisement
cam.Paign, to collect deposits amounting to several crores of rupees
D
from thousands of depositors spread all over India by holding
out attractive terms of interest. The firm initially prospered and its
deposits steeply mounted to astromical figures. The firm, however,
began to acquire, or deal in, movable and immovable properties in
various cities of India in the names, not only of the firm, but of
E relatives and benamidars of various persons who were in management
its affairs. A sizeable portion of the firm's funds being thus tied up or
siphoned away from its coffers for the private benefit of the individuals
j
running it, the firm eventually began making defaults in its obligations
to the depositors. The depositors, thereupon, approached the High
Court and eventually the matters came up to this Court in W.P.
F Nos. 638 and 755-800 of 1983. With a view to safeguard the interests
. of the depositors, arrange for a return to them of as much of their
deposits as possible and ensure that the properties of the firm were
duly indentified and the full and due benefit of the funds diverted from
its coffers was restored to the firm, this Court, by its order dated
4.5.83, appointed a retired District Judge as a Commissioner to take
G charge of all the assets, documents and papers of the firm and of its
agents, sub-agents, transferees and benamidars. Directions were given
to •.the Commissioner to look into the claims of depositers and to devise
a scheme whereby persons who had deposited sums not exceeding
Rs.25,000 could be repaid expeditiously. By a subsequent order dated
27.9.83, certain directions were given to enable the Commisioner to
H
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL [RANGANATHAN, J.J 287

gather in all the assets of the firm. It is necessary to quote a portion of A
' this order. It read:

"The Commissioner may attach such assets and properties
which, in his prima facie opinion, are of the ownership of
the firm Sanchaita Investments, or of the ownership of any B
of its partners. Such assets and properties may be put to
sale by the Commissioner if no objection is received to the
attachment thereof within one month of the date of attach-
ment. All objections received to the attachment of such
assets or properties will be forwarded by the Commissioner
to the Prothonotary of the High Court of Calcutta. We c
request the learned Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court
to nominate a Division Bench of the High Court for the
purpose of jurisdiction upon such objections. The Division
Bench will dispose of the objections on merits after hearing
all interested parties."
D

Reference must also be made to another order of this Court

l
dated 23.9.85 in C.M.P. No. 38589/85. By this order, this Court
directed:

E
"After hearing counsel for the parties we consider it neces-
sary to empower the Commissioner, Sanchaita Investment,
to remove all unauthorised persons and trespassers from
possession of the property proposed to be sold by the Com-
missioner under the orders of this Court and to hand over
vacant possession to the rightful purchaser~. The Commis-
F
sioner is authorised to take the assistance of the police for
the purpose of obtaining possession and handing it ov!'r to
the rightful purchasers."

In pursuance of these directions, the Commissioner attached a
large number of properties situate all over the country which, he had G
reason to believe, were properties which belonged to the firm though
acquired in the names of others. When the properties were so attached
and sought to be sold, objections were lodged by persons claiming title
or possession. of the property in their own right and these objections
were adjudi~ated upon by the designated Division Bench of the
Calcutta High Court. H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

One of the properties that were thus attahced by the Commis-
A sioner was house No. 52/1/lB, Surendra Nath Banerjee Road,
Calcutta-14. (There is a slight discrepancy in the door number of this )
property as appearing in various documents but that is not material for
our purposes). This property stood on land of the small extent of about
800 sq. ft. and comprised of five rooms in the ground floor (three in
B front and two at the back), a first floor and a second floor but, being
business premises in a busy commercial locality, is of considerable
value today. The Commissioner found that this property had been
-~
acquired in the name of Mahamaya Devi, an aunt of Sambhu Prasad
Mukherjee, for Rs.85,000 on 4.10.1977. Apparently the Commis- ~
sioner was of the opinion that the property was really that of the firm
acquired in the name of Mahamaya Devi. He, therefore, attached this
c property by a public notice taken out, inter alia, in "The Statesman"
dated 27 .5.84 to.the following effect:

"The Public are hereby informed that in exercise of the
authority and power vested in me under the order of the
D Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed and made on
4.5.83 and 27.9.83 ..... , I had attached or I had taken
possession of or I am hereby taking possession of (as the
case may be) the following properties (specified in the

E
schedule below) including flats, lands, cars, launch, busi-
ness, shares in companies and partnership firms and house
l
,.j
properties. The persons in which names these properties
stand are hereby warned that they shall not lease out,
assign, sell, mortgage, transfer or otherwise encumber or
deal with them until further orders from me.· Anybody
dealing with such properties would do so at his own risk or •
'responsibility.''
F
It appears that there were also other similar notices issued by the
Commissioner. In response to one of these notices, Smt. Mahamaya
-A
Devi put forward her claim to the ownership of the property but her
claim was rejected by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
on 29.3.1985 in Case No. 23 of 1984. Sri Kapur, learned counsel for the
G responde.nts states that a petition for special leave to appeal to this
Court preferred by her was also rejec;~d sometime in 1985. This is not
contradicted by the petitioners. We may, therefore, proceed, for the
purposes of this case, on the footing that, though standing in the name :¥::
of Mahamaya Devi, _the property in question belongs to the firm
Sanchaita.
H
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL [RANGANATHAN, J.I 289

Subsequently the property was brought to sale by the Commis- A
sioner. Sealed tenders were invited for the purchase of the properties
specified in the schedule, by a notice published in "The Statesman" on
7 .3.86, on an "as is where is basis". The notice specifically mentions
that the possession of only three of the six items mentioned in the
notice was with the Commissioner and the property presently in ques- B
tion was not one of them. Asit Kumar Manda! and two others (the
respondents before us, hereinafter compendiously referred to as 'the
-y Mandals') offered, on 22.5.86, to purchase the property for
Rs.1,26,000 in lump sum subject to negotiations in the matter. They
.., undertook to deposit 25% of the price on the acceptance of the offer
and the balance "at the time of giving us the physical possession of the
said premises". After a discussion with the Commissioner, they C
deposited Rs.31,500 on 11.6.1986 and stated in their letter of the same
date to the Commissioner:

"We shall deposit the balance amount as and when called
upon to do so. Thereafter, you will hand over to us the D
possession of the said premises free from illegal trespas-
sers" -

On 12.6.86, the Commissioner accepted the offer of the Mandals sub-
ject to the following conditions, namely:
E

"(a) That the proposed sale in your favour under the
conditions mentioned herein below is approved by our
advisory Board.

- (b) That l/4th (i.e. Rs. 31,500) of the total consideration F
money is at once paid by you to the Commissioner,
Sanchaita Investments, through bank draft or pay order.

(c) That the balance of the consideration money is paid
within 30th June, 1986. G

(d) That in default of payment of the consideration money
as stated above, the earnest money (Rs.31,500) to be paid
by you through bank draft or Pay Order as mentioned
above shall stand forfeited.
H

I
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

(e) That the aforesaid sale is made on "as is where is
A
basis".

(f) That on payment of the full consideration money as
above within the date fixed you may take steps for obtain-
mg possession of the said entire premises and the Commis·
B sioner will help you for the said purpose."

The Mandals, thereafter, paid Rs.31,500 on 27 .6.86 and Rs. 63,000 on
18.7.86 and wrote to the Commissioner as follows:

c "Please sent us the draft sale certificate in respect of the
above property for our approval on behalf of our clients
and arrange immediately to give our clients vacant posses-
sion of the propeny as agreed upon.

D Please inform us if any objection was received by you. in
respect of the property pursuant to your advertisement in
the Statesman dated March 7, 1986."

The Commissioner referred the purchasers to his lawyer in regard to
the preparation of the sale certificate and a certificate of sale deed was
E eventually issued in favour of the Mandals on 10.4.1987. The certifi-
cate referred to the orders of the Supreme Court, the satisfaction of
the Commissioner, the fact of attachment and the absence of any
ob1ections from Mahamaya Devi and conveyed the property to the
Manaals. --
....
f
Having thus purchased the property, the Mandals requested the
Commissioner to give them vacant possession of the property but there
was no response. Thereupon, on 17.9.1987, the Mandals moved an
application (being Matter No. 3737 /87) before the High Court praying
that they may be given vacant possession of the property. It appears
G that, in the meantime, they had come to know that the premises were
occupied by the following parties:

Nameofperson Portion occupied

1. Paul Brothers"(Textile Division) One room on Ground Floor
H
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL [RANGANATHAN, J.} 291

2. Paul Brothers (Watch Repairing One room on Ground Floor A

• Division)

....... 3. Paul Brothers (Electronics
Division)
-do-

B
4. Dula! Dutta and Panchanan Dutta -do-

5. G.Dey -do-

r 6. Phani Bhusan Ghosh First Floor

c
- 7. Hari Narayan Gupta Second Floor

These persons were made respondents to the application and, alleging
that they were all trespassers in occupation of the property, a prayer
was made that they should be directed to hand over vacant possession
of the property to the applicants. This prayer has been granted by the D
Division Bench of the High Court and, hence, these two petitions for
leave to appeal, one by the three Paul Bros. and the other by th.ree of
the other four "objectors". We have he:~rd these petitions at great
length. We grant leave in both S.L.Ps. and proceed to dispose of the
appeals.
E
The petitioners claim that they are bona fide tenants in the pro-
perty. Except for petitioner H.N. Gupta who was inducted as a tenant
by Mahamaya Devi, the others claim that they have been tenants even
under the predecessors-in-interest of Mahamaya Devi. They claun,
therefore, that they can be evicted only in accordance with due proce- F
dure prescribed by law after full contest and opportunity to lead evi-
dence and cannot be thrown out in summary proceedings like the
present one just as if they were persons in unauthorised possession of
the property or as if they were mere trespassers. On the other hand,
for the Mandals it is contended that once it is held that Mahamaya
Devi was a benamidar for Sanchaita, the Commissioner is entitled to G
take possession of the property, removing all present occupants
including tenants therein and selling the property at the maximum
possible price free of all encubrances -so that the proceeds may be
made available to the imnumerable depositors who had been denuded
of their lifetime savings by the undesirable and fraudulent activities of
the persons in charge of the firm. A pernicious evil, it is said, warrants H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A a drastic remedy and hence this Court, having regard to the large scale
involvements of the firm, considered it necessary to arm the Commis-
sioner with wide powers so that he may be able to gather in all the real
assets of the firm without delay or obstruction for the benefit of the
defrauded investors. The Mandals have, it is said, having regard to the
terms of the orders passed by this Court and by the Calcutta High
B Court, purchased the property in the belief that they would not only
get a perfect title but also speedy possession of the property. If hona
fide purchaseFs are to be obstructed like this by all manner of claims,
real or imaginary, it is argued, the properties of the firm can only be
sold for a song and the entire object and purpose of the various direc-
tions of this Court would be frustrated. It is, therefore, contended
c that, even if the appellants are really tenants in the property as
claimed, their claims will have to yield to the paramount public
interest of the Sanchaita investors.

We are unable to accept this contention of the Mandals. It is not
D maintainable either in principle or on the terms of the directions given
by this Court. To take up the latter first, there is nothing in the terms
of the orders of this Court or of the notices of attachment or sale or of
any other orders of the Calcutta High Court that vests an absolute title
in the auction purchasers of the property free from all encumbrances.
The order of the Court dated 27.9.83 only authorised the Commis-
E sioner to attach properties which he believed to belong to Sanchaita
and provided for any objections to the attachment being heard by the
designated Division Bench of the High Court. The attachment and sale
of the property presently in question were effected in pursuance of this
order. Any sale, transfer, encumbrance or alienation subsequent to
the attachment could, no doubt, be impugned but the attachment did
F not have the legal effect of invalidating earlier interests of others sub-
sisting in the property. In fact also, the sale was on an "as is, where is
basis" i.e. without prejudice to the claims of other persons in whose
favour bona fide encumbrances or interests may have been created
earlier qua the property. There appears to be some force in the conten-
tion of the claimants that the price paid by the appellant is not
G adequate to reflect the market value of the property situated in an
important commercial locality in Calcutta at the present day if sold
free from all encumbrances but we shall leave this contention out of
account as there is no material before us on this aspect. The order of
23.9.85, no doubt, goes a step further but it only empowers the
Commisioner to remove all unauthorised persons and trespassers. The
H reference to vacant possession in the order has to be restricted only to
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL [RANGANATHAN, J.[ 293

cases where the property is in the possession of such unauthorised A
• persons or trespassers and cannot be read so as to empower the Com-
missioner to evict forcibly, or seek the orders of the Court to evict
~ summarily, persons who are in lawful possession of the property. We
should also like to point out that, in fact also, the Mandals got no
better right on the terms of the auction and the correspondence that B
followed. Though the Mandals referred in their letters to vacant pos-
session of the property, the sale was only on an "as is, where is" basis
and the Commissioner at no time offered or assured the Mandals that
-y they would get such vacant possession. He only offered to help them in
the process to the extent permissible in law. He has made this position
4 explicit in the letters written by him.
c
~

Sri Kapur, for the Mandals, placed considerable reliance on the
common order of the Calcutta High Court dated 25.3.86 in Amar
Monda/ v. Commissioner, (Matter No. 122 of 1986) andJagdish Chand
~ Aggarwala v. Commissioner, (Matter No. 146 of 1985) to contend that
the Mandais are entitled to get vacant possession of the property. In D
that case, Amar Monda! who was the auction purchaser of an item of
property (which we shall call 'Property A') at a sale by the Commis-
sioner sought to be put into possession by evicting the respondents 2 to
5 "who are unauthrised occupants" and Jagdish Chand Aggarwala,
whose highest bid at an auction for an item of property (which we shall
E
- i,.,.~ call 'Property B') by the Commissioner could not be proceeded with
because of an injuction obtained by respondents Nos. 6 & 7, sought
the orders of the Court "for completing the sale and giving delivery of
possession by evicting the respondents". So far as Property A is con-
cemed, the Court found, for reasons which need not be repeated here,
>- that they were "unauthorised occupants" and not "bona fide tenants in
occupation" and were, hence liable to be evicted. Likewise, in respect F
of Property B, the Court concluded that the cliams of tenancy put
- ~-
forwarel by respondents 6 & 7 "were frivolous". These were, there-
fore, not cases where tenants were held liable to be evicted and the
order does not help the Manda/s to the extent claimed.
G
Sri Kapur, however, relies strongly on two sets of observations in
this order. The first reference by him is to an observation that any

-- person claiming to have any interest in the property should file his
claim within 30 days of the attachment and that any claim made
beyond this period would be barred by limitation and hence cannot be
considered. The second reference is to an observation that the Court is H
294 SUPRF.ME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

A
entitled to adjudicate upon all claims, even those of persons who claim
to have any bona fide intermediate interests in the properties attached
by the Commissioner. The Court observed:

"In our opinion, therefore, once an attachment is
B
effected by the Commissioner on the authority of his
powers vested in him by the Supreme Court, not only
persons claiming right, title and interest independent of
Sanchaita Investments but also claiming any bona fide
intermediate interest created by Sanchaita Investments in
favour of the claimant should put forward to claim of
c objection. It was not the intention of the Supreme Court
that there should be proliferation of litigation, result
whereof would be that the insignificant part of the
depositors' money which should be realised by the Com-
missioner would be wasted in litigation. This position has
been made clear by the Supreme Court when the Supreme ·
D Court by a recent order upheld the view of the Bombay
High Court that a claim of tenancy in respect of a property
attached by the Commissioner must be lodged with this
Special Bench and not before any ordinary Civil Court. The
attachment made by the Commissioner cannot be equated
with an attachment made by a Civil Court either prior to
E judgment or in execution since there what is attached is the
right, title and interest of either the defendant on the judg-
ment debtor. In the present case, however, on the Scheme
framed by the Supreme Court what is being attached is the
property itself so that any body having any lawful claim in
whatever interesfheld by him, must put forward his claim
F before the Commissioner so that it can be adjudicated once
for all in a proceeding before this Special Bench and thus
avoid wasting litigation. We do not accept for a moment
that this court's jurisdiction is limited to adjudication of all
·claims preferred as against the attachment made by the
Commissioner. The scope of our power must be deter-
G
mined wit~ reference to the intention of the Supreme Court
referred to herein. Such power in our opinion covers
adjudication of all sorts of claims or objections for the
Commissioner's·attachment and sales of assets belonging to
the beneficial ownership of Sanchaita Investment preferred
or brought forward at any stage and also to make all inci·
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL [RANGANATHAN. J.] 295

A
dental and consequential oraers as we may find necessary
to assist the Commissioner in collecting the assets having
regard to the resistance faced by him from persons putting
forward any claim of his own. In that view we hold that our
power covers a case like the present one where even after
the objection has been overruled by this Court, others B
have come forward to resist the Commissioner from effect-
ing sale by putting forward a claim of tenancy. Such a claim
in our opinion, is really an objection to the attachment
when we consider it on its substance, that comes well within
tjJ.e scope of our jurisdiction. It matters little whether such
jurisdiction is invoked by the Commissioner or the clai-
mant or the proposed purchaser."
c

He submitted, on the stren_gth of these passages, that the claims in the
~ pn;:sent case are liable to be dismissed (a) on the ground that they are
time barred and (b) even if the claimants are found to be bona fide D
tenants in the property.

We are unable to agree. While, no doubt, this Court had indi-
cated that claims and objections to attachments should be filed within
a period of thirty days, that period cannot be read as if were a rigid
rule of limitation prescribed by law. The order also only says that, if E
- "'-· objections are not put forward within a month, the property inay be
sold and does .not preclude objections being filed after the sale.
Indeed, the Division Bench did not rest its conclusion on this ground
and proceeded to consider the objections on merits. We are also
unable to read into the order any conclusion of the Division Bench that
even bona fide tenants are liable to be evicted from the property. If F
that had been so, the Bench need not have gone into a detailed consi-
deration of the merits of the claim of tenancy put forward by· the
- _.Jo.___
contesting respondents in that case. All that the Bench observed in the
passage extracted above was that all claimants to the properties sub-
jected to attachment by the Commissioner, whether as owners or as
intermediate interest holders (like tenants) or otherwise, have to put G
forward their claims for adjudication by the Division Bench. The
Bench did not proceed to hold, as suggested by Sri Kapur, that the
auction purchasers are entitled to get vacant possession of the property
free from all encumbrances and that even bona fide tenants can be
directed to be summarily evicted from the property in pursuance of the
H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

A orders of this Court. We are unable to see in this order any observation
that could legitimately have induced the Mandals to believe that they
would be entitled to evict even lawful tenants from the property by
purchasing it at the auction sale.

B
In principle also, thi• contention is not well founded. The object
of the directions given by this Court was to cut short the proliferation
of litigation and to ensure that the Commissioner is abk to gather in .
expeditiously the assets of Sanchaita which were dissipated or
siphoned off by the persons in charge of the firm. Thus, if the firm's
moneys had been utilised to purchase properties in the name of various
c individuals benami such property had to be taken back by the Commis-
sioner from such benamidars. Also, where the said benamidars or
other persons put up frivolous claims to the property or its possession
without the semblance of any legal title to its ownership or possession,
such claims could and should be rejected by the Court. But this princi-
D pie cannot apply to bona fide interests of others in the property. For
instance, suppose Sanchaita's moneys had been advanced on the mort-
gage of an item of immovable property, all that the Commissioner
would be entitled, legally and equitably, would be to call in the mort-
gage moneys (principal and interest) and not the entire property itself.
An auction purchaser of such a property cannot get anything higher
E than the interest Sanchaita itself could have claimed in respect of the
property. Likewise, if Sanchiata's moneys had been invested in a pro-
perty which had been bona fide let out to tenants, Sanchaita would
have paid only the value of the property so encumbered and its rights
in the property can only be subject to those tenancy rights. Sanchaita
could not have a right in respect of the property superior to that which
its vendor had. Similar would be the position where Sanchaita or its
F
benamidars had, after acquiring a property, created a bona fide
tenancy or other encumbrance in respect of that property, in respect of
independant outsiders who acquire such interest for consideration. To
say that Sarichaita, through the Commissioner, would be entitled to
vacant possession even from such tenants, or free from such encum-
G brances, would result in its being able to realise a larger interest in the
property than it acquired. Not only this, the result of any such conclu-
sion would enure the benefit of, not Sanchaita, but of the auction
purchaser of the property. Having bid for and acquired the right, title
and interest of Sanchaita in the property, he would be enable to get
vacant possession which Sanchiata, even if it had continued to be
H active and properous, could not have got except by due process of law.
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL IRANGANATHAN, J.J 297

We have, therefore, no doubt \hat this Court, by its orders dated A
4.5.83 and 27.9.83 intended only that the firm, or the auction pur-
chasers at the sales effected by the Commissioners, should be able to
clear the property of trespassers and unauthorised persons and not
that even bona fide tenants could be got evicted straight away in
pursuance thereof. Normally, even trespassers and uuauthorised
persons cannot be thrown out except by recourse to legal proceedings B
but, having regard to the large scale dealings, the special cir-
cumstances and the desperate situation, this Court made an exception
and made it possible for the Commissioner to get false and frivolous
claimants out of the way by a quick procedure but nothing more. We

- are, therefore, of opinion that if the Court, on a consideration of the
materials placed by the claimants or objectors, comes to the conclu-
sion that they are not mere stooges or false claimants but have a bona
fide right to possession as against Sanchaita, it cannot direct their
c

eviction but should leave it to the auctioin purchaser to initiate such
eviction proceedings in the normal course and in accordance with law,
as may be available to him against the claimants/objectors.
D

Sri Kapm laid considerable stress on the aspect that, unless
vacant possess10n can be had, no one will purchase any property at the
auction sales conducted by the Commissioner as no one would like to
face further litigation to secure possession of the property. He submit-
ted that the object which the Court had in mind was to effectuate sales E
of Sanchaita properties by assuring vacant possession with a view to
secure maximum price therefor and to ensure expeditious return to the
Sanchaita investors of as much of their deposits as possible and that
this object would be totally frustrated if people were encouraged to
put in hurdles in the way which will depreciate the value of the pro-
perty. This contention proceeds, only partially, on a correct basis. It is F
.... >-- true that there should be a quick and expeditious realisation of the
properties that really belong to Sanchaita. That is why the Court
empowered the Commissioner to attach and sell properties that, in his
opinion, really belong to Sanchaita though ostensibly held in the
names of others and also devised a quick and summary method for
adjudication upon claims and removal of obstructions. But this order G
cannot be availed of to ride rough-shod over the rights and interests of
others in the properties which have been created bona fide. Third
parties who have acquired real interests in the property, either inde-
pendent of, or even through, Sanchaita cannot be called upon to give
up their rights. To do so would be to do more than merely realise what
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.
A
rightfully belongs to Sanchaitas; it would amount to conferring on
Sanchaita a better title than it had, in fact, acquired. The depositors or •
investors in Sanchaita cannot claim any such rights. It is, therefore, -r-
difficult to accepf the ground urged by Sri Kapoor as entitling the
Mandals to an interest that can ignore or override all manner of rights
B and interests in the auctioned properties.

For the above reasons, we are unable to accept the plea that the
Mandals are entitled to get vacant possession of the premises, irrespec-
tive of the nature of the interests the claimants had therein and that,
-·-
):.-
c on this ground alone, we should uphold the order of the Division
Bench. We shall, therefore, proceed to consider how far the claim of
each one of the appellants before us to continue in possession of the
property, unless and until evicted in due course by process of law, is
-
maintainable.
4
D
Though the High Court has set out in extenso the details of the
claims put forward by the various claimants, we consider it necessa.ry
to set out, in some detail, the evidence put forward by the claimants as
the principal complaint of every one of the claimants is that a consider-
able volume of evidence adduced by him has been summarily brushed
E aside by the Division Bench. We shall, therefore, proceed to do this:
) --
I. PAUL BROTHERS

The petitioners in SLP 3258/59 have described themselves as
F "Paul Brothers". A complete paper book containing copies of a "'
number of documents has been placed before us to substantiate their
claim that they have been tenants in the premises since a very long ( .~

time. These are: """

G "(1) A letter addressed by one Ramakrishna Paul to Dilip
Kumar Paul and Mihir Kumar Paul, Landlords, seeking
permission to make some alterations in the Radio and
Electrical shop and a reply thereto dated 8.4. 75 by Dilip
and a similar reply to Amar Nath Paul (Paul Brothers) in
respect of the watch repairing shop;
H
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL [RANGANATifAN, J.] 299

A
(2) A letter intimating "Amar Nath Paul (Paul Bros.),
Repairing Shop" that Satyanarayan Paul had died on
10.8.66 and that the four signatories AshoK Paul, Dilip
Kumar Paul, Mihir Kumar Paul and Mrs. Suchitra Kundu
had succeeded as landlords entitled to the rents thereafter;
B

(3)(a) A stamped deed of partnership dated 14.6.61 drawn
up by B.M. Motilal. Advocate, between Amar Nath Paul,
Robindra Nath Paul. Abani Bhushan Paul. Arnn Kumar
Paul, Kiron Chandra Paul and Gopal Chandra Paul (all
sons of Mohni Mohan Paul) sharing profits equally. The c
- firm is said to have started business in Watch Repairing and
Tailoring w.e.f. 14.4.61 at the suit premises under the
name and style of Paul Bros. and is said to have been
registered with the Registrar of Firms.

D
(b) Three stamped deeds of partnership drawn by B.M.
Motilal (Advocate) and dated 25.4.75 have also been pro-
duced. The first of these, of Paul Brothers (Watch Divi-
sion), Amar Nath Paul, Robindra Nath Paul, shows Abani
Bhushan Paul and Rama Kishore Paul (sons of Mohni
Mohan Paul) as having started and been carrying on busi- E
ness as watch d"alers and repairers since 15.4.74 in the
premises sharing profits equally without a formal deed till
then. The second is of Paul Brothers (Radio and Electrical
Division) in which Kiron Chandra Paul, Amiya Kumar
Paul, Samir Kumar Paul, Amar Nath Paul (sons of Mohni
Mohan Paul) and Shyama Ranjan Paul (son of Lalit Mohan F
Paul) are partners with Amar Nath having a 10% share and
the others 22.5% share each. fhe deed recites that the
above partnership started a business in radio and electricals
on 15.4. 74 at the suit premises as well as at 195/ l, Mahatma
Gandhi Road, Calcutta without a formal deed having been
drawn up till that date. The third deed is between Arnn G
.· Kumar Paul, Benoy Kumar Paul, Gopal Chandra Paul and
Amar Nath Paul (all sons of Mohni Mohan Paul) in respect
of Paul Brothers-Tailoring Division with Amar Nath Paul
having a 10% share and the others 30% each. This deed
also recites that the business had started earlier with effect
H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A
from 15.4.74 but that no formal deed had been drawn up
till then.

(c) A deed of partnership dated 8.5.1980, also on stamp
B paper and witnessed by B.M. Motilal, is between Kirall
Chandra Paul, Amiya Kumar Paul, Samir Kumar Paul
(sons of Mohni Mohan Paul) and Promotho Nath Paul (son
of Lalit Mohan Paul). By this deed Shama Ranjan and
Amar Nath retire from Paul Brothers-Radio and Electri·
cals w.e.f. 13.4.80 leaving the remaining four to share the
profits equally.
c
(4) More than 225 rent receipts in favour of "Amar Nath
Paul", "Amar Nath Paul and others'', or "Amar Nath Paul
(Paul Brothers)" have been produced. They are spread
D over the period from 1962 to November 1987 (except
October 1965 to March 1968). They are signed by S.N. Pal
between May 1962 and September 1965, by Ashok Paul
between April 1968 and October 1971, by Dilip and Mihir
between October 1971 and September 1977 and by
Mahamaya Devi from October 1977 onwards. Rent
E receipts from April 1962 to September 1987 in favour of
"Amar Nath Paul", "Amar Nath Paul (P.;i.ul Bros.) Watch
Makers Shop" have been produced. Also copies of rent
receipts in favour of "Ramkrishna Paul", "Ramakrishna
Paul and others" in respect of one shop room in the north
west corner covering the period from March 1974 onwards
F signed by Dilip and Mihir and Mahamaya Devi are also
produced.

(5) Rent receipts and a deposit receipt showing that a third
shop situated in the north west corner of the ground floor,
G previously occupied by one Tarak Nath Roy, was taken.
over by the Paul Bros. at a rent ofRs.75 p.m. in December
1973 after purchasing the assets of the earlier tenant for
Rs.200.

H (6) Three electricity bills of October '69, January '75 and
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL IRANGANATHAN, J.} 301

A
May '88 in respect of the premises issued in the name of
• one D.P. Paul, claimed to be an uncle of the Pauls and
Electricity bills in_ the name of .Paul Bros Radio Division
of April '80 and April '88 have also been produced.

B
(7) Three telephone bills of 1969, 1973 and 1977 in the
name of Paul Brothers (and three electricity bills of March
'74, March '77 and February '88 in the name of Tarak Nath
Roy) have been produced.

(8) Receipts dated 2.5.61, 10.5.62, 7.5.63, 25.3.72 and
c
28.12.87 by the Corporation of Calcutta being fees in
respect of the Tailoring Shop in the premises for the years
1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1971-72 and 1987-88 in favourof
Paul Bros. (Partners Sri Arnn Kumar Paul and others).
Corporation Receipts (18 in number) for trade licence fees D
in respect of radio and watch business carried on in the
premises covering the years 1962-63 to 1987-88 (except
1984-85, 1981-82, 1980-81, 1975-76, 1972-73 and 1971-72)
in the name of Paul Bros. are produced. These describe the
partners of the firm differently as "Amiya Paul and
others", "Arnn Kumar Paul and others" and "Amar Nath E
Paul and others" 7 fee receipts for trade licences issued to
the watch division of Paul Bros. covering the years 1987-88,
1986-87, 1985-86, 1983-84, 1982-83, 1981-82, 1980-81,
1979-80, 1978-79, 1977-78, 1976-77, 1975-76 and 1974-75
describe the partners as "Rabindra Nath Paul and others".
There are also fee receipts in respect of licence fees for the F
years 1961-62, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1987-88 in respect of the
watch repairing shop in the name of "Paul Bros. (Amar
Nath Paul & Others)".

(9) A letter dated 17. 7. 70 addressed by the Government of G
West Bengal to the Accountant General, copy endorsed to
Mis Paul Brothers at the address of the suit premises and
other correspondence between 1970 and 1973 with the
tailoring division of the said firm at the same address.
Copies of two letters addressed to the radio and watches
H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1990] 2 S.C.R.

A shop of Paul Bros. at this address between July 1965 have
also been produced. •

(10) Challans for payment of self-assessment tax of Rs ..190
B for assessment year 1976-77 by Paul Brothers (Tailoring
Division) on 12.8.76 from this address. Also produced are
certificates from the Income Tax Department that the three
Paul Bros. at the above address are being assessed to
..
;

income tax since assessment year 1975-76/1976-77.
-v-
...,.
c (11) Orders u/s 158 and demand notices u/s 156 of the
_.
Income-tax Act in respect of assessment years 1969-70, L
1968-69, 1967-68 have been produced, the former of which ~

evidences the constitution of Paul Bros. A declaration have io
_,,(_
been filed before a Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, on
D 26.8.65 by some of the Pauls referred to above to the effect
that they are the partners in the firm from 14.4.61 and that
they have filed income-tax returns for three years. The
declaration also states:

E "2. That we have been carrying on business as
tailors, watch repairers and sellers of cut piece cloth and
watches from !st day of Baisakh, 1368 B.S. and also we
have started radio manufacturing/sales/service department
from second year of our business i.e. 1369 B.S. We have no
other business save and except those mentioned in this
F paragraph, this is true to our knowledge". '
( 12) .Documents showing the registration of the following
firms with the Registrar of Firms:

G Date Firm
10.1. 74 Paul Bros. (Watch) Division)
10.6.'.!ilPaul Bros..
(Radio and Electrical Division)
H 20.9.61 Paul Bros.
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL IRANGANATHAN, J.] 303

A
( 13) A central excise licence dated 20. I. 1965 and a postal
department licence of 24.8.62 in respect of the radio and
electrical shop in the name of Paul Bros. with Shri Kiran
Chandra Paul as a partner.

B
( 14) Several letters, notices, receipts etc. from the Income-
tax Department and Central Excise Department as well as
-y correspondence from the Life Insurance Corporation of
India and premium receipts have been produced but these
i are not of much help except to show that they were addres-
sed to Paul Bros. or Arun Kumar Paul or Rabindra Kumar
,- Paul or Amar Nath Paul or A.K. Paul or Amarendra Nath
c
Paul and others or Abani Bhushan Paul or Kiran Chandra
Paul, or Gopal Chandra Paul at the suit premises.

( 15) Extracts from the assessment registers of the Corpo- D
ration of Calcutta for two years. The first of these shows
the name of the owner as Avamoyee Paul and that of the
occupier as Taraknath Roy and others. Endorsements
thereon show the calculation of the annual value on the
basis of the following rents:
E
\......
Rs.p.m.
"! Tarak Nath Roy 25.00
Panchanan Dutta 25.00
(Watch Shop) 41.00
).
(Tailoring Shop) 44.00 F
7.50
7.50
~
J.._
II Phani ,Bhusan Ghose 45.00

III Owner 45.00
G
240.00"
----
-_}(
The second of these documents shows the name of the
owner as "Estate of Avamoyee Paul Clo Shri Mihir Paul H

.
<
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

A and Brothers" but this is struck off and replaced by "Smt.
Mahamaya Devi (In the premises)". Against the column
"occupants" the name of Taraknath Roy and others is
replar,ed by "Smt. Mahamaya Devi and others''. This
extract also contains, what apparently are later, endorse-
B ments of details as follows:

"R.S. (Road Side) Shops

Rentp.m.
I Ramakrishna Paul says 75
c (Goldsmith)
(Radio Amamath Paul " 48
(Tailoring) Paul Bros. 48
(Goldsmith Panchanan " 44
Dutta (Dula! Dutta)
D

2. DULAL CHANDRA DUTTA

The tenancy in respect of a backside shop on the ground floor is
claimed as having belonged initially to two persons, Panchanan and
E Dula! Dutta. Of these, Panchanan Dutta appears to have died in 1981
and it is only Dula! Dutta who is the claimant now. He states that the
property belonged to Satya Narain Paul then to Dilip Kumar Paul and
Mihir Kumar Paul and then to Mahamaya Devi. In the case of this
claimant there is no direct evidence of tenancy in the form of a rent
deed or rental agreement. About 51 r.ent receipts have been produced
F
but all these receipts purport to have been issued only by Mahamaya
Devi. No receipts have been produced for any earlier period tliough
the claimant says he has been tenant of the property since 1973; it is
stated that the· rent receipts issued in the joint names by Dilip Kumar
Paul and Mihir Kumar Paul are missing from his custody. The High
Court has said that there are several inconsistencies, defects and errors
G in the receipts that had been produced and, though a number of other
documents have been placed before us here, none of these receipts or
copies thereof have been produced. According to the claimant's
affidavit filed before the High Court, he started his work as a
goldsmith in the premises in 1973, the tenancy of which stood in the
name of one Panchanan Dutta and that he also contributed rents to
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL IRANGANATHAN, J.] 305

Panchanan Dutta "who used to pay the rents in his name to the owner A
of the premises". No receipts in the joint names of Panchanan Dutta
and the claimant have been produced. The extracts from the records of
the Corporation referred to earlier show Panchanan Dutta as the
occupant and the claimant's name does not figure therein. The claim of
tenancy is, however, sought to be established by the following
documents: B

(a) A certificate of the Gold Control Authority of 1976 recognis-

- ing the claimant as a goldsmith with his place of business and
residence at 6, Doctor's Lane, Calcutta subsequently shifted to
the suit premises w.e.f. 4.11.81; c

(b) A certificate from the Bangia Swama Silpi Smithi dated
12.8.75 showing the claimant's place of work at the suit premises
and a letter of 13.11.1987 from the Samithi stating that the clai-
mant has been maintaining a Khata under the Gold Control Act D
from 1976; ·

(c) A petition for remand by the police dated 18.9.75 in connec-
tion with a criminal case showing the claimant's address at the
suit premises; E

(d) A search list of 23.9.75 on complaint no. 657 u/s 380 l.P.C.
showing that certain items were seized from Dula] Dutta's shop
in the suit premises; and a petition from the prosecution seeking
impleadment of Dula! Dutta of the suit premises as a co-accused F
in connection with the above case;

(e) A letter from the Police of a complaint from the Corporation
against the claimant for not having obtained a trade licence for G
1979-80 in time and a municipal licence fee receipt dated
19.12.80 in respect of the year 197S-79 issued by the Corporation
of Calcutta in favour of t1'e claimant and Panchanan Dutta;

(f) A summons issued by the Corporation to the claimant on H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

A 6.2.81 showing his address as at the suit premises; and

(g) A letter dated 10.6.81 by the claimant to the Superintendent,
Central Excise asking for a change of address from Doctor's
B Lane to the suit premises.

-.,,·-
(h) An extract got in 1988 from the assessment book of the
Corporation which shows Smt. Mahamaya Devi as the owner
and Shri Phani Bhusan Ghose, Shri Amarnath Paul and Shri
.
Dula! Dutta as the occupants. This purports to be the entry with
c effect from 3/66-67 to 4188.

3. PHAN! BHUSAN GHOSH

D Phani Bhusan Ghosh, who claims tenancy in respect of the first
floor of the suit premises comprising of three bed rooms and one
sitting room besides other conveniences. Ghosh is a retired Govern-
men! servant. He claims to have been inducted as a tenant in 1948 bv
Satyanarayan Paul at a monthly rent of Rs.75 p.m. According to him,
on the death of Satyanarayan, his son Ashok Paul used to grant rent
E ~
receipts; thereafter, consequent on a partition among the heirs of
Satyanarayan, DHip Kumar Paul and Mihir Kumar Paul used to issue
the receipts until, in October 1977, they sold the suit premises to
Mahamaya Devi. Though it i~ not clear whether there was any original
tenancy agreement in 1948 and no rent receipts of that time have been 4_
produced, the claimant relied on the following documents in support
F of the plea of tenancy:
~-~,...

(a) A photo copy of a certified copy ofthe plaint in Ejectment
Suit No. 1095/61 filed by Satyanarayan Paul against the claimant
for eviction and khas possession which recites that the claimant
G was a tenant cif Satyanarayan in respect of the premises; (loci-
dentally, the schedule to this deed refers to Taraknath Roy,
Panchanan Dutta, Dula! K. Dey and Amarnath Paul (Paul Bros.)
as the tenants on the ground floor). '* -
l:l (b) An undated letter from Dilip Kumar Paul and Mihir Kumar
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL [RANGANATI!AN, J.[ 307

Paul informing the claimant of the sale of the premises to A
Mahamaya Devi and a letter dated 9.10.77 from Prabir Kar, an
Advocate on behalf of Mahamaya Devi asking claimant to attom
--..: to Mahamaya Devi as she had purchased the property from the
two Pauls;
B
(d) Three receipts issued by Ashok Paul in 1969, three issued by
Dilip and Mihir in 1971, 1976 and 1977 and two issued by
Mahamaya Devi for July' 78 and September' 87;
-y
-j'
(e) A certificate dated 4.1: 1988 from the Geological Survey of c
India stating that the address of the claimant had been recorded
on 20.3.52 in its official records as being at the suit premises.

4. HARINARAYANGUPTA
D

This person claims tenancy in the second floor. One feature that
distinguishes this claimant from others is that he claims to have been a
tenant in the property under Mahamaya Devi since 1982. The plea of
Gupta is that he became a tenant of the flat on the second floor under
E
- \,.___ Mahamaya Devi on a rent of Rs.350 p.m. vide an agreement dated
7. 1. 1982 and that he had been regularly paying the rent to her ever
since upto September 1987. The agreement produced is an unregis-
tered agreemer;t. There are only two rent receipts dated January 1983
and September 1987 produced in support of the claim. The photostat
copies of the extract from the records of the Corporation which have
;. F
been referred to earlier show the occupants as Mahamaya Devi and
then one Harindra Nath Chakraborty. H.N. Gupta claims to be
running a tea stall on S.P. Banerjee Road and to have taken this
.... ,- .
premises on rent.

G
We shall now consider the claims of each of these claimants
individually, starting with Hari Narayan Gupta.

1. Hari Narayan Gupta:

- """ Sri Kapur contended that since it has now been finally decided H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1990] 2 S.C.R.
A
that Mahamaya Devi never really owned the premises herself, she
could not have validly created a tenancy in favour of Gupta. We do not
think this conclusion necessarily follows. It is true that the finding that
Mahamaya Devi was only a benamidar for Sanchaita has become final
but it does not follow that any tenancy created by her is invalid, unless
B it can be shown that, in creating such interest, she acted in breach of
trust and contrary to the interest of Sanchaita. If she had put Gupta in
possession of the property as her stooge or, if Gupta had taken the
property from her on rent collusively or with full knowledge that the
property really belonged to Sanchaitas the position would be different
but if Gupta is an independent third party with no such notice or
c intention and had been inducted by her as a tenant bona fide, all the
Sanchaita can claim is that she should account to firm for the rents
derived by her from the property in the past and that the firm or the
Commissioner or the auction purchaser should be entitled to the rents
from the property as from the date of its attachment by the
Commissioner.
D

Examining the facts and the evidence from the perspective, it
does seem that Gupta has not been able to adduce any evidence to
satisfactorily establish that he was a bona fide tenant under Mahamaya
Devi. It .is difficult to believe that this tea-stall owner took the suit
E premises on a rent of Rs.350 from Mahamaya Devi. There is no
consistent or satisfactory evidence of such tenancy. We are inclined to
agree with the conclusion of the High Court that Gupta was not a bona
fide tenant in the property as claimed and that he is liable to evicted
from the premises.

F
2. Dula/ Dutta:

Turning next to the case of Dula! Dutta, we have gone through . .J.. -
the documents placed before us carefully and arc constrained to
G observe that th.is claimant has also not been able to establish his bona
fide tenancy of the prem.ises. The original trade licence shows that the
claimant had started his business at No. 6, Doctor's Lane and that this
was got changed to the address presently in question only in 1981 but,
according to him, he had started working at the suit premises even in
1973. The police remand papers and corporation notices no doubt )It'.-
H indicate that the claimant was found at this address in 1975 and 1978-
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL [RANGANATHAN, J.] 309

79 but these papers are not sufficient to establish the claimant's plea of A
tenancy. Admittedly, even according to him. Panchanan Dutta was
originally the tenant of the premises and the claimant seems to have
had some working arrangement with himc Panchanan Dutta is said to
have died sometime in 1981 and the change of address for excise
purposes seems to show that the claimant moved into the premises
wholly thereafter. But the qeustion is not whether the claimant was in B
occupation of the premises but whether he was a bona fide tenant
therein. As to this, there is no proof or evidence except the few odd
rent receipts purportedly issued by Mahamaya Devi the genuineness of
which has not been accepted by the High Court. It was argued that
even if Dula! Dutta is treated as a sub-tenant or as being in adverse
possession, the landlords' right to evict him would be time barred. But c
neither of these stands was taken by Dula! Dutta and his adverse
possession, even if claimed, could not have started before 1981 and so
no question of time bar could arise. In the circumst'lllces, we are
constrained to uphold the findings of the Division Bench in respect of
the portion of the suit premises occupied by Dula! Dutta.
0

3. Phani Bhusan Ghose:

We next tum to the case of Phani Bhusan Ghose. On behalf of
the Mandals, it is submitted that the pieces of evidence relied on by the E
claimant amount to nothing. Sri Kapur submits that, as per the
extracts from the Corporation records filed in the case, one Avamoyee
Paul was the owner of the premises in 1948 and there is nothing to
show that either Satyanarayan Paul or his legal heirs were ever the
owners of the property. The partition deed has not been produced.
The rent receipts produced contain lacunae, errors and inconsisten- F

- ,~-
cies. The genuineness of the receipts and the letters produced is not
accepted. Advocatefrabir Kar, who is alleged to have sent the attom-
ment notice, is alleged to be a reputed agent of Sanchaitas. ~o far as
the plaint of 1961 is concerned, he points out, there is no .explanation
given as to what made the claimant obtain a certified copy of the plaint
in 1972 and there is also no evidence as to the outcome of the suit. The G
records of the Geological Survey had not been summoned and it is also
curious that the claimant has produced a certificate of 19.88 to show the
claimant's address in 1952 but not his recent or present address as
recorded therein.

We are of opinion that these objections cannot be sust_ained. H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A Leaving aside the rent receipts and other corrspondence the authenti-
city of which cannot be taken for granted, there is enough evidence to
sustain the claim of the applicant. The certified copy of the plaint
shows that Ghosh was tenant of the first floor under Satya Narayan
Paul. who claimed to be the owner of the premises. It does not show
B that he was tenant since 1948 but read, with the certificate of the
Geological Survey of India, it does show that Ghosh was the tenant
between 1952 and 1961 in the premises. No foundation has been laid
and no material has been adduced to show that the copy of the plaint is
not genuine or cannot be acted upon or that there was no such suit in
1961 between the parties as alleged. What happened to the suit or what
defence was raised by Ghosh to the suit is irrelevant in the absence of
c any suggestion, or any material to indicate, that Ghosh had been in
fact evicted in pursuance of the order passed in the suit by the date of
the present proceedings. There is also no information placed before us
as to the persons who were the legal representatives of Avomoyee Paul
or that Dilip and Mihir did not at all because the owners of the pro-
D perty. On the other hand, the extract from the Corporation records at
the relevant time, shows the owner of the premises to be:

"Estate of Avamoyee Paul c/o Sri Mihir Paul and Bros."

E This indicates a connection of Mihir Paul with the premises and the
·sale deed of 1977, the genuineness of which is not. and cannot be, 10
dispute (for that, verily, is the basis of the title of Sanchaita to the
property in question) shows that she purchased it from Mihir and
Dilip. It is, of course, theoriticaliy possible that Ghosh had been
evicted from the premises by Satyanarayan and that the receipts pro-
F duced from Dilip and Mihir as well as the letters of authority produced
are not genuine. But this is a far-reaching assumption and it cannot be
presumed that all these are got-up documents, in the absence of some
foundation or material for the suggestion. In our opinion, the claimant
has let in sufficient material to show that he was a tenant in the pre-
mises long before Mahamaya Devi entered into the picture.
G

4. Paul Brothers:

Now turning to the case of Paul Brothers, our narration above_
H' shows that there was a mass of evidence adduced _by the parties in
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL [RANGANATHAN, J.} 311

support ot their tenancy in the premises since long. The grievance of A
these-and indeed also the other-claimants has been that the High
Court has failed to apply its mind to the evidence produced in support
of each of the claimants. It is submitted that an analysis of the judg-
ment of the High Court (which runs to 52 pages) will show that the
High Court, after setting out the preliminary facts, the contents of the
B
affidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits and the conten-
tions of the respective counsel in great detail, has disposed of the
entire case with the following observations appearing on the last page
of the judgment:

"On the basis of the intrinsic evidence and when the c
'Corporation' records, produced on behalf of the Respon-
dents, being incompatible with the rent receipts, their
inherent inconsistencies do not appear to us to be trust
worthy, it would appear that the submissions of Mrs. Paul,
regarding the character and quality of rent receipts as pro-
D
duced now, were of substance and we also feel that the story
of tenancies were subsequently sought to be established for
the purpose of avoiding the effect of the auction sale and
that too, not in a bona fide manner. We are of the con-
firmed opinion that in terms of the determinations of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as followed earlier by a
E
Special Division Bench of this court in Jagadish Agar-
wal/a's case (supra), this court is not so powerless to make
orders in terms of the prayers as made in the petition and
that too in the facts of the present case and as such, we
allow this application and direct the Respondent Commis-
sioner, to take such steps, so that, forthwith vacant posses-
F
sion of the said premises is handed over to the petitioners
i.e. the purchasers in the auction sale. We also have it on
record that if necessary, the Respondent Commissioner
would also be entitled to take appropriate Police help and
assistance in having Respondent Nos. 2-8 removed from
their claimed occupation of the said premises or to break G
open any padlock which is there or which has been put in
now."

It is submitted that the High Court does not discuss why and in what
respects the Corporation records are inconsistent with the rent H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19901 2 S.C.R.

A
receipts, what the inherent defects and mcons1stenc1es were in me rent
receipts produced and why the story of tenancies is considered to be an
after thought. There is also no reason given for the rejection of the
innumerable other pieces of evidence produced by the claimants.

B
On the other hand, the complaint of Sri Kapur has been that th~
claimants-Paul Brothers, in particular-had been placing documents
before the Courts in driblets. Most of these were in the nature of
Xerox copies with no guarantee of their authenticity. He points out
that the entire collection of receipts, purporting to be from
c Satyanarayan Paul, Ashok Paul and Dilip and Mihir-not to speak of
Mahamaya Devi-could easily have been written up for the purposes
of the case. In his submission, they have indeed been so written up at
one or more sittings and these are revealed by the inconsistencies and
discrepencies, some of which have been pointed out before the High
Court by Mandal's counsel and referred in the judgment. It is unfair,
D argues Sri Kapur, to say that the Division Bench has not applied to the
facts of the individual cases. These having been fully brought out in the
earlier parts of the judgment with special reference to the defects
pointed out and criticisms made by the counsel for Mandals, the High
Court did not consider it necessary to repeat the sam~ again m the
concluding part of the judgment. He says that the Division Bench had
E had occasion to deal with similar claims in regard to various other
properties and has assessed the entire evidence in the light of its _j -
experience regarding the various devices employed to put forward
ostensible third parties as obstructors. The criticism that the judgment,
High Court's reasoning is brief and cryptic, he submits, is based on a
total misconception and should be rejected.
p

Sri Kapur then drew our attention to the infirmities in the case
put forward by the claimants, both procedural and substantive. He
says that it is only in this Court, for the first time, and that too, after
this Court called upon them to do so, that the Paul Brothers have
G attempted to put forward a chronological version of the history of
tenancy of the three shops allegedly taken on rent by them. Earlier,
they merely produced a few receipts and correspondence in the name
of Paul Brothers-a convenient label enabling them to explain away
documents of different dates in the names of different persons who
were all "Pauls" and to create a confusion between Avamoyee Paul
H (shown originally in the municipal records), Satyanarayan Paul and his
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL [RANGANATHAN, J.] 313

alleged relatives Dilip and Mihir, and the different Pauls who were A
~

aileged to be partners in Paul Brothers on different dates. Also, many
-----....: documents (such as the income-tax and customs department notices,
assessment and certificates) have been produced in this Court and
were not produced· before the High Court. Per contra, certain docu-
ments (such as the first affidavit dated 14.11.87, the 1974 partnership B
deeds and a letter dated 5.4.75 from Ram Krishan Paul to tne land-
lords) produced before the High Court have been deliberately sup-
pressed from this Court. Sri Kapur submits that the most crucial

T circumstances in the present case is that the objections of Mahamaya
Devi to the attachment and sale of the property did not contain even
the whisper of a suggestion that there were not one or two but as many
as seven tenants in the property. If this liad been a fact, he says, she c
would not have failed to say so emphatically in her objections. Sri
Kapur points out that the basic case of all the claimants is that the
premises originally belonged to one Satyanarayan Paul, that on his
~
death five persons inherited the property, that on partition among
them the property came to Dilip and Mihir (mentioned, perhaps D
wrongly, as Dula! Chandra Paul in the affidavit of 14.11.1987) who
conveyed the property to Mahamaya Devi. The whole edifice crum-
bles, he points out, as even according to the municipal extracts pro-
duced by the claimants, neither Satvanarayan Paul nor Dilip and Mihir
have been ever recorded as the owners of the property. The version of
~ undatea attomment letters, partition and Prabir Kar's letter was not E
'>.. attempted to be proved by producing even an affidavit from Dilip or
Mihir or Prabir Kar. Even an affidavit from Mahamaya Devi is cons-
picuous by its absence. Above all, says Sri Kapur, the case of the
claimants regarding the constitution and nature of business of Paul
,, Bros. and the evidence in support thereof as put forward at various
stages bristles with inaccuracies and inconsistencies which justify its F
rejection. These were pointed out before the High Court in detail and
- > have been set out in the judgment. Some of these are as follows:

( 1) The business has sometimes been described as one
business (SLP and affidavit of 2.11.88,) and sometimes (affidavit G
of 14.11.87) as separate businesses with separate partners and
separate deeds of partnership. The date of commencement of

- ""'
each of these businesses have been set out differently in the
different affidavits and go back to 1958, 1959, 1962, and 1973.
These do not talks with the partnership deeds of 1974 which
shows the businesses as having started only on 15.4.74 which in H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A turn, is belied by the ;iroduction of a deed of 1961. The names of
the partners are also not given consistently. While Ramakrishna
Paul is a partner of the radio and tailoring firms as per the
affidavit of 2.7.88, he is not one as per the affidavit of 14.11.87.
So also K.C. Paul is a partner of the tailoring firm according·to
B t},;.e 1988 affidavit but is not, according to the earlier one;

(2) In the affidavit dated 14.11.87, the claimants had
stated that they had been able to locate, after great effort, a few
municipal trade licences and produced eight of them. But lat11r,
with the second affidavit, they produced a few more. How this
c has been done has not been explained;

(3) It is not explained how the electricity bills stand in the
name of Taraknath Roy and D .P. Paul and how the electricity
D bill in the name of Paul Brothers dated 13.3.80 shows an electri-
city connection having been obtained for the premises only on
that date though the claimants were said to have been running
the business there since 1973;

E (4) The telephone bills again are not helpful. They contain
the name of one M.S. Paul for which no explanation has been
given. One of the bills shows the installation of telephone in the
premises even in 1958 though according to the claimants the
business in the premises started earliest, only in 1959. Also the
bills give the number of the premises as No. 52/1/l and not
F 52/1/lB;

(5) The rent receipts have been produced in driblets-six
with the affidavit of 1987 and 44 with the affidavit of July
1988-while with the SLP only 17 rent receipts have been
0 annexed. Some of the receipts date back earlier than 1974 though
according to the partnership deeds, the business of the firms
commenced only in April 1974. The rent receipts bear almost
continuous serial numbers. There are several discrepancies: for
example, a receipt dated 6.8.77 bears no. 59 whereas one dated
10.6. 77 bears no. 60 and there are two rent receipts for July 1977.
H The rent receipts in favour of Paul Bros. (Electricals) are in the
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL [RANGANA1HAN, J.] 315

name of R.K. Paul who is not a partner therein according to the A
deed and who is referred to in the Corporation records as a
goldsmith. There is no rent receipt from Avamoyee Paul or her
estate and Satyanarayan Paul, Ashok Paul, Dilip Paul or Mihir
Paul are not recorded as owners. There is not a single affidavit by
any of the signatories to the receipts vouching for their
genuineness; B

(6) There is no effort by these three or the other claimants
to pay the rents, after the attachment of the premises, either to
the Commissioner or to the Mandals. Their case that they did not
know about the attachments was false; c

(7) There is no difference between the case of the clai-
mants in the cases of Amar Manda! and Jagdish Prasad Agar-
walla and that of the various claimants herein.
D

6
We have carefully considered the contentions of the parties. It is
true that, some of the grounds of criticism of the evidence produced by
the claimants are valid. A certain amount of difficulty has been caused
by the uncertainty as the natu_re of the proceedings conducted by the
High Court in pursuance of the order of this Court. It appears that the E
Court has produced to consider the issues in a summary manner on the
basis of the affidavits of the claimants and on prima facie consideration
of the documents formally as well as informally produced in support
thereof. The enquiry has been somewhat analogous to the procedure
which used to be adopted in disposing of petitions by obstructors F
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ·(before its amendment in
1976) which concluded in a tentative finding leaving it open to the
parties to file a suit and establish their right to possession. On the
other hand, if these are taken to be in the nature of proceedings for the
execution of a decree under the amended code, there will have to be a
more detailed trial with full opportunity to parties to lead evidence and
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, as a finding reached in these G
proceedings would be final and conclusive. In the present case, the
application has been disposed of somewhat summarily and informally.
At one stage, therefore, we were inclined to think that the matter, so
far as the Pauls are concerned, should be remanded to the High Court
for fresh disposal. But, on further consideration, we have come to the
H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

A conclusion tnat there is sufficient material placed on record oy the
claimants to show that Paul Bros. have been in the premises as tenants
since long aud that no such remand 1s necessary. Taking all the docu- r
men ts collectively, it is difficult tn say that one could reasonably arrive
at the conclusion that the Pauls were trespassers or unauthorised
B occupants. The Mandals have doue nothing positive to establish this
but to barely deny the genuineness of the various documents put for-
ward on behalf of the claimants.
y-
One direct piece of evidence i< the extract from the municipal t·
records. It was suggested that the photostats produced could not be
c relied upon and that the entries therein could have been reproduced by
some process of superimposition. However, it has been found that,
apart from the photostat copies, the original records were summoned
certified extracts produced by the representative of the Corporation
have been taken on record. These extracts which relate to the relevant
~ period show the Paul Bros. as tenants in the three shops. It is true that
the estate of Avamoyee Paul has been shown as the landlords but the
entry contains a reference to Mihir Paul and, admittedly, Mahamaya
Devi purchased tte property from Dilip and Mihir. Letters calling for
attornrnent and rent receipts galore have been produced. Though one
cannot eschew· the possibility of these being got up documents, some
E foundation must be laid by the Mand~ls to reject them other than a
mere assertion that they are not genuine. The discrepancies suggested
are few and minor and do not warrant the summary rejection of the
large number-of receipts. The dectricity bills, phone bills, tax depart-
ment correspondence likewise prima facie support the claim of the
appellants. The mistakes pointed out in the telephone and electricity
I' bills are insignificant. The bills are made out not in the name of 1\1.S.
Paul but M/s Paul Brothers and D.P. Paul is said to be itn uncle of the
Pauls. These, toj!ether with the partnership deeds and mumc1pal
licences and correspondence the genuineness of which cannot be . ..J... -
rejected straightaway, support the claim. No doubt there is a slight
discrepancy in that the 1961 deed is not referred to in the 1974 deeds
G but this cannot entail the rejection of the 1961 deed. We do not wish to
elaborate on every one of the other points made by the counsel for the
Mandals. It is true that Mahamaya Devi did not refer to them in her
objections but she was concerned about saving "her" property from
attachment and sale as that of Sanchaitas and the issue about her
,...
having let out the property was irrelevant for the decision of her objec-
H tions. We are satisfied that even in the face of the evidence produced
PAUL BROS. v. A.K. MANDAL !RANGANATHAN, J.] .117

before the High Court (which has been supplemented in some respects A
• before us) it is difficult to treat the Paul Bros. as trespassers or unau-
--< thorised occupants in the property.

In the result, the appeals of Paul Brothers and Phani Bhusan
Ghose are allowed while those of Hari Narayan Gupta and Dula!
B
Chandra Dutta are rejected. We, however, make no order as to costs.

S.B. Petition allowed.

- ,>.-