RAM PRAKASH SHARMAversusBABULAL IRLA (D) BY LRS. & OTHERS
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 391
- Decided
- 12 May 2011
- Disposal
- IA disposed
Holding
If a tenant fails to vacate within the time granted by the court, eviction shall be carried out by police force, and any further extension must be sought well in advance.
Summary
In a rent‑control eviction matter, the Supreme Court considered an interlocutory application seeking an extension of time for the tenants to vacate the premises. The Court extended the vacate date to 31 August 2011 and ordered that if the tenants fail to leave by that date, they shall be evicted by police force. The Court emphasized that such a direction is a general rule for cases where tenants do not comply with a court‑granted vacate period, and any further extension must be applied for well in advance. The order thus provides a clear procedural mechanism to enforce eviction when voluntary surrender does not occur. The application was allowed, granting the extension and directing police‑assisted eviction upon non‑compliance.
Issues considered
- What procedure should be followed when a tenant does not vacate premises after being granted time by the court?
- Can the court direct police to evict the tenant upon expiry of the granted time?
- Must an application for further extension of vacate time be filed in advance?
Subjects
Judgment
(2011) 6 S.C.R. 757
. RAM PRAKASH SHARMA A
~·
..•·. •.,:·. v.
" , • •• < •
-eABULAL H~LA (0) BY LRS. & OTHERS
' .... "· · I.A. N0.3 OF 2011
. . ._,._ :;
. IN
'CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5310 OF 2010 B
MAY 12, 2011
[MARKANOEY KATJU ANO GYAN SUOHA MISRA, JJ.]
Rent Control and Eviction: c
Eviction matters - Time granted to tenant to vacate the
tenanted premises - Premises not vacated within the time
granted - Held: In such a case, the tenant should be evicted
by the policeforce, if he does not vacate the premises on his 0
own ;;.. ::(~1i~nt::cal1li!e an application well in advance to seek
. extenslo"tii;>ffi"?:~:·t<)vacate the premises.
.. <:·".~.·:~··«· ..
Cl\/H.;':APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 3 of 2011
., E
Civil Appeal No. 5310 of 2010.
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.9.2008 of the High
Cout of Judicature Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in Second
Appeal No. 285 of 2005. F
Madhurima Bora (for Balaji Srinivasan) for the appellant.
Rishi Maheshwari (for Shally Bhasin Maheshwari) for the
Respondents.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered
757 H
... 758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 6 S.C.R.
A ORDER
Taken on Board.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
B In the facts and circumstances of the case, time to vacate
the premises in question is extended till 31st August, 2011 and
if the tenants do not vacate on or before the said date, they will
be evicted by police force.
C We further make it clear that when this Court allows the
petition/appeal of the landlord or dismisses the petition/appeal
of the tenant and grant some time to vacate the premises in
question and if the tenant does not vacate within the time
granted, the tenant shall be evicted by police force. This is a
general direction we are passing because we are coming
D across several cases where the tenants are not vacating the
premises in question despite granting time by this Court or
despite furnishing an undertaking to this Court with a result that
the landlord has to initiate contempt 1roceedings or any other
proceedings. Hence, we give a general direction that when
E tenant's petition/appeal is dismissed and he is given time to
vacate then on the expiry of that time, he will be evicted by police
force if he does not vacate of his own.
If any extension of time to vacate is desired, that
F application should be filed well in advance.
The Interlocutory Application is allowed accordingly.
N.J. Interlocutory Application allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.