REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2789 OF 2005

Laxmi Ram Pawar                                      ……  Appellant

Vs.

Sitabai Balu Dhotre & Anr.          ……  Respondents  

JUDGMENT

R.M. LODHA, J.  

The decision in this appeal,  in our opinion, turns upon the  

answer  to  the following question  :  is  a  trespasser  covered by the  

definition of ‘occupier’  in  Section 2(e)(v) of the Maharashtra Slum  

Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for  

short, ‘ the 1971 Act’) and if  yes,  whether for his eviction  from the  

1

land or building  in a declared slum area, the written permission of the  

Competent  Authority  under  Section  22(1)(a)  of  the  1971  Act  is  

mandatorily required.   

2. The  aforesaid  question  arises  in  this  way.  The  first  

respondent—Sitabai  Balu  Dhotre  filed  a  suit  for  declaration,  

possession  and  permanent  injunction  in  respect  of  a  room  

admeasuring  8  x  10  ft.  situate  in  Survey  No.  1001,  Wadarwadi  

bearing  Hut  No.  12/161/B/P/424,  Taluka  Haveli,  Pune  (for  short,  

‘subject  room’)  against  the  appellant—Laxmi  Ram Pawar  and  the  

second  respondent—the  Executive  Engineer,  Shivajinagar,  Sub  

Division, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Pune in the Court  of  

10th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune. The case set up by the  

first respondent was  that the subject room  was constructed by her in  

1987; she got electricity connection in her name and has been paying  

taxes to the  Pune Municipal Corporation.  She claimed that she was  

having photopass in her name. According to her, she permitted the  

appellant being her friend to stay temporarily for two months in the  

subject room as she (appellant)  was not having any shelter to live in.  

After expiry of two months, the first respondent asked the appellant to  

vacate the subject  room but she requested the first respondent to  

2

allow  her  to  stay  in  that  room  for  some  more  time  as  she  was  

arranging  for  some  alternative  accommodation  but  later  on,   the  

appellant  denied  the  first  respondent’s  right  in  the  subject  room  

necessitating the legal proceedings against her.  The first respondent  

averred  that  the  appellant  was neither  tenant  nor  licensee  but   a  

trespasser and has no right to remain in possession of the subject  

room.

3. The appellant traversed the first respondent’s claim and  

set up the case in the written statement that the subject room  was  

constructed by her in 1987 and she was  holding a photopass for the  

said room. She denied that she was a trespasser. She set up a  plea  

that subject room was situate in the slum area declared  under the  

1971  Act  and  the  suit  filed  by  the  first  respondent  was  not  

maintainable without written permission of the Competent Authority  

in view of the prohibition contained in  Section 22(1)(a) of that Act.  

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court  

framed the following issues :

“1. Does  plaintiff  prove  that  he  has  title  over  the   hutment bearing No. 12/261/B/P/424 situated at   S.No. 1001 Wadarwadi, Shivajinagar, Pune?

2. Does plaintiff further prove that defendant No. 1  is residing in the said hutment?

3

3. Does plaintiff  further prove that defendants are   trying  to  cut  off  the  electric  supply  from  the   electric meter No. 26540?

4. Whether the suit is tenable without permission of  competent authority?

5. Is plaintiff entitled to claim possession of the suit  hutment from defendant No. 1?

6. Is plaintiff entitled to claim permanent injunction   as prayed for?

7. What order and decree?”     

5. After recording the evidence and hearing   the parties, the  

trial court recorded its findings in the negative in respect of issue nos.  

1,3,5 and 6 and in the affirmative with regard to issue no. 2. While  

dealing  with  issue  no.  4,  the  trial  court  held  that  the  suit  without  

obtaining the written permission from the Competent Authority was  

not tenable. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the suit on August  

31, 2000.  

6. The first respondent challenged the judgment and decree  

passed by the trial  court  in appeal  before the District  Court,  Pune  

which was transferred to the court of the 8th Additional District Judge,  

Pune for hearing and final disposal. The first appellate court reversed  

the findings of the trial court on issue nos. 1 and 4 and held that the  

4

suit  filed  by  the  first  respondent  was  maintainable  without  the  

permission of the Competent Authority as she was a trespasser and  

in case of  trespasser in occupation of  slum area governed by the  

1971  Act,  the  permission  of  the  Competent  Authority  was  not  

necessary. The first appellate court, thus,  set aside the judgment and  

decree  of  the  trial  court  and   decreed  the  suit  filed  by  the  first  

respondent on July 30, 2004 and directed the appellant to deliver the  

possession of the subject room  to the first respondent within 60 days  

therefrom.

7. Being not satisfied with the judgment and decree dated  

July  30,  2004  passed  by  the  first  appellate  court,  the  appellant  

preferred  second  appeal  before  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  

Bombay  but  without  any  success  as  the  second  appeal  was  

dismissed in limine on September 20, 2004.  

8. The answer to the  question which has been framed by us  

at  the  outset   has  to  be found in  light  of  the  statutory  provisions  

contained  in  the  1971  Act.  Section  2(e)  of  the  1971  Act  defines  

‘occupier’ as follows :

“S.2(e) "occupier" indudes,- (i)  any person who for  the time being is  paying or  is  liable to pay to the owner the rent or any portion of the  rent of the land or building in respect of which such rent

5

is paid or is payable; (ii)  an owner in occupation of, or otherwise using, his  land or building; (iii) a rent-free tenant of any land or building; (iv) a licensee in occupation of any land or building; and (v)  any  person  who  is  liable  to  pay  to  the  owner  damages  for  the  use  and  occupation  of  any  land  or  building;”

9. Section 3(1) empowers  the State Government to appoint  

the Competent Authority for the purposes of the 1971 Act.  Section 4  

provides for declaration of slum area/s by  the Competent Authority  

on its satisfaction to the aspects stated therein.   Chapter VI  of the  

1971 Act deals with the subject titled ‘Protection of Occupiers in Slum  

Areas from Eviction and Distress Warrants’. Section 22 which falls in  

Chapter VI to the extent it is relevant for the present appeal reads as  

follows :

“S.22.  (I)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  any  other law for the time being in force,  no person shall  except  with  the  previous  permission  in  writing  of  the  Competent Authority—

(a)  institute,  after  commencement  of  the  Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and  Redevelopment) Act,  1971, any suit  or proceeding for  obtaining  any  decree  or  order  for  the  eviction  of  an  occupier from any building or land  in a slum area or for  

6

recovery of  any arrears of  rent or compensation from  any such occupier, or for both; or  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . .

(2)  Every  person  desiring  to  obtain  the  permission  referred  to  in  sub-section  (1)……..shall  make  an  application  in  writing  to  the  Competent  Authority in such form and containing such particulars  as may be prescribed.

(3)  On  receipt  of  such  application.  the  Competent  Authority,  after  giving an opportunity  to the parties of  being heard and after making such summary inquiry into  the circumstances of the case as it thinks fit, shall, by  order  in  writing,  either  grant  or  refuse  to  grant  such  permission.

(4) In granting or refusing to grant the permission under  clause  (a)  or  (b)  of  subsection (1),  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .   the  Competent  Authority  shall  take  into  account  the  following factors, namely :-

(a)  whether  alternative  accommodation  within  the  means of the occupier would be available to him, if he  were evicted;

(b) whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement  and clearance of the slum area;

(b-1)whether,  having  regard  to  the  relevant  circumstances of each case, the total amount of arrears  of rent or compensation and the period for which it is  due and the capacity of the occupier to pay the same,  the occupier is ready and willing to pay the whole of the  amount  of  arrears  of  rent  or  compensation  by  reasonable installments within a stipulated time;

(c) any other factors. if any, as may be prescribed.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . .  

7

(5) Where the Competent Authority refuses to grant the  permission under any of the clauses of sub-section (/)  it  shall  record a brief statement of the reasons for such  refusal, and furnish a copy thereof to the applicant.”

10. A ‘trespass’ is an unlawful interference with one’s person,  

property  or  rights.   With  reference  to  property,  it    is  a  wrongful  

invasion of another’s possession. In Words and Phrases, Permanent  

Edition  (West  Publishing  Company),  pages  108,  109  and  115,  in  

general, a ‘trespasser’ is described, inter alia,  as follows:  

“A “trespasser” is a person who enters or remains upon  land in the possession of another without a privilege to  do so created by the possessor’s consent or otherwise.  In re Wimmer’s Estate,  182 P.2d 119, 121, 111 Utah  444.”

“A “trespasser” is one entering or remaining on land in  another’s  possession  without  a  privilege  to  do  so  created by possessor’s consent, express or implied, or  by law.  Keesecker v. G.M. Mckelvey Co., 42 N.E. 2d  223, 226, 227, 68 Ohio App. 505.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“A “trespass” is a transgression or wrongful act, and in  its  most  extensive  signification  includes  every  description  of  wrong,  and  a  ‘trespasser”  is  one  who  does  an  unlawful  act,  or  a  lawful  act  in  an  unlawful  manner,  to  the  injury  of  the  person   or  property  of  another. Carter v. Haynes, Tex., 269 S.W. 216, 220.”  

8

11. In  Black’s  Law  Dictionary  (Sixth  Edition),  1990,  page  

1504,  the term ‘trespasser’ is explained as follows :

“Trespasser.   One  who  has  committed  trespass.  One  who intentionally and without consent or privilege enters  another’s  property.  One  who  enters  upon  property  of  another without any right, lawful authority, or express or  implied  invitation,  permission,  or  license,  not  in  performance of any duties to owner, but merely for his  own purpose, pleasure or convenience”.  

12. In  Halsbury’s  Laws  of  England;  Volume  45  (Fourth  

Edition), pages 631-632,  the following statement is made under the  

title ‘What Constitutes Trespass  to Land’.  

“Every  unlawful  entry  by  one  person  on  land  in  the  possession of another is a trespass for which an action  lies, even though no actual damage is done. A person  trespasses upon land if  he wrongfully  sets foot  on it,  rides or drives over it or takes possession of it, or expels  the  person  in  possession,  or  pulls  down  or  destroys  anything  permanently  fixed  to  it,  or  wrongfully  takes  minerals from it, or places or fixes anything on it or in it,  or if  he erects or suffers to continue on his own land  anything which invades the airspace of another, or if he  discharges water upon another’s land, or sends filth or  any injurious  substance  which  has  been collected  by  him on his own land onto another’s land.”  

In the same volume, page 634, under the title ‘trespass ab initio’,  the  

legal position is stated thus :

“If  a  person  enters  on  the  land  of  another  under  an  authority given him by law, and, while there, abuses the  

9

authority  by  an  act  which  amounts  to  a  trespass,  he  becomes a trespasser ab initio, and may be sued as if  his original entry were unlawful.  Instances of an entry  under  the  authority  of  the  law  are  the  entry  of  a  customer into a common inn, of a reversioner to see if  waste  has  been done,  or  of  a  commoner  to  see  his  cattle.

To  make  a  person  a  trespasser  ab  initio  there  must be a wrongful act committed; a mere nonfeasance  is not enough.”

The aforesaid statement takes into consideration  the Six Carpenters’  

case1  wherein the general rule given is this, ‘when entry, authority or  

licence is given to any one by the law, and he doth abuse it, he shall  

be a trespasser ab initio’.

13. In Law Lexicon, The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary by P.  

Ramanatha  Aiyar,  2nd Edition,  Reprint  2000,  page 1917,  the  word  

‘trespass’   is  explained by relying upon Tomlins Dictionary of  Law  

Terms as follows:

“Trespass,  in  its  largest  and  most  extensive  sense,  signifies any transgression or offence against the law of  nature,  of  society,  or  the  country  in  which  we  live;  whether  it  relates  to  a  man’s  person or  his  property.  Therefore beating another is a trespass; for which an  action of trespass in assault and battery will lie. Taking  or detaining a man’s goods are respectively trespasses,  for which an action of trespass on the case in trover and  conversion,  is  given  by  the  Law;  so,  also,  non- performance of promises or undertakings is a trespass,  upon  which  an  action  of  Trespass  on  the  case  in  assumesit  is  grounded:  and,  in  general,  any  

1 (1610) 8 Co Rep 146

10

misfeasance,  or  act  of  one  man,  whereby  another  is  injuriously affected or damnified, is a transgression, or  trespass, in its  largest sense; for which an action will  lie.”  

14. In Salmond  on the Law of Torts, 17th Edition by R.F.V.  

Heuston, 1977, page 41,  the expression, ‘Trespass by remaining on  

land’  is explained in the following manner :

“Even a person who has lawfully entered on land in the  possession of another commits a trespass if he remains  there after his right of entry has ceased. To refuse or  omit to leave the plaintiff’s land or vehicle is as much a  trespass as to enter originally without right. Thus, any  person who is present by the leave and licence of the  occupier may, as a general rule, when the licence has  been  properly  terminated,  be  sued  or  ejected  as  a  trespasser,  if  after  request  and  after  the  lapse  of  a  reasonable time he fails to leave the premises.”

Under the title ‘Continuing Trespasses’, page 42, it is stated:

“That trespass by way of personal entry is a continuing  injury, lasting as long as the personal presence of the  wrong doer, and giving rise to actions de die in diem so  long as it lasts, is sufficiently obvious. It is well-settled,  however,  that  the  same characteristic  belongs  in  law  even to those trespasses which consist in placing things  upon the plaintiff’s land. Such a trespass continues until  it has been abated by the removal of the thing which is  thus trespassing; successive actions will lie from day to  day until it is so removed; and in each action damages  (unless awarded in lieu of an injunction) are assessed  only upto the date of the action. Whether this doctrine is  either  logical  or  convenient  may be a question, but  it  has been repeatedly decided to be the law.”  

11

15. Insofar as the definition of ‘occupier’ in Section 2(e) of the  

1971 Act is concerned, it must be immediately stated that the  said  

definition is not exhaustive but inclusive. Clauses (i) to (iv) of Section  

2(e) definitely do not  embrace within itself a trespasser but Clause  

(v)  that reads,  `occupier’  includes ‘any person who is liable to pay to  

the  owner  damages  for  the  use  and  occupation  of  any  land  or  

building’  would surely  take within  its  fold  and sweep a  trespasser  

since such  person is  not  only  liable  for  damages for  an act  of  

trespass but also liable  to pay to the owner damages for the use and  

occupation of any land or building trespassed by him.  It is immaterial  

whether damages for the use and occupation are in fact claimed or  

not by the owner in an action against the trespasser. By no stretch of  

imagination,  a  trespasser  could  be  taken  out  of  the  definition  of  

‘occupier’  in  Section  2(e)(v)  of  the  1971  Act.   Clause  (v),  in  our  

opinion,  includes  a  person  who  enters  the  land  or  building  in  

possession of another with permission or consent but remains upon  

such  land  or  building  after  such  permission  or  consent  has  been  

revoked since after revocation of permission or consent, he is liable  

to pay damages for unauthorised use of land or building. The Division  

Bench of the Bombay High Court in  Taj Mohamed Yakub v.  Abdul  

12

Gani Bhikan2 has taken the view that a trespasser is included in the  

definition of  `occupier’ under Section 2(e)(v) of the 1971 Act which,  

we hold, is  the correct view. The contrary view taken by a Single  

Bench of the Bombay High Court in  Shankar Dagadu Bakade and  

Ors. v.  Bajirao Balaji  Darwatkar3 is not right on this point  and has  

rightly been overruled by the Division Bench in Taj Mohamed Yakub2.  

Strangely,  the  first  appellate  court  relied  upon  Shanker  Dagadu  

Bakade’s  case3 which has already been overruled in  Taj Mohamed  

Yakub2 and  distinguished  Taj  Mohamed  Yakub2 on  superficial  

reasoning  without  properly  appreciating  the  statement  of  law  

exposited  therein.   The High  Court,  unfortunately,  failed  to  notice  

such grave error in the judgment of the first appellate court.   

16. Once  it  is  held  that  a  trespasser  is  included  in  the  

definition  of  ‘occupier’  in   Section  2(e)(v)  of  the  1971  Act,  what  

necessarily follows is that  before initiation of any suit or proceeding  

for eviction of such trespasser,  the previous written permission of the  

Competent  Authority  is  required  as  mandated  by  Section  22(1).  

Section 22(1) starts with non obstante clause and it is clear from the  

provision contained in clause (a) thereof that no person shall institute  

2 (1991) Mh L J 263 3 1990 (2) Bom CR 38

13

any suit or proceeding for obtaining any decree or order for eviction of  

the occupier from any building or land in a slum area or for recovery  

of any arrears of rent or compensation from any such occupier or for  

both  without  the  previous  written  permission   of  the  Competent  

Authority.  The  use  of  words  `no’  and  `shall’  in  sub-section  (1)  of  

Section 22 makes it abundantly clear that prior written permission of  

the Competent Authority for an action under clause (a) thereof is a  

must.  The role  of the Competent Authority under the 1971 Act is  

extremely important as the legislature has conferred power on him to  

carry out execution of works in improvement of the slum. Sub-Section  

(2)  of  Section  22  requires  the  person  desiring  to  obtain  the  

permission  to  make  an  application  in  writing  to  the  Competent  

Authority. As per sub-section (3) on receipt of such application, the  

Competent Authority by an order in writing may either grant or refuse  

to grant such permission after giving an opportunity to the parties of  

being  heard  and  after  making  such  summary  enquiries  into  the  

circumstances of the case as it thinks fit. Sub-section (4) of Section  

22 requires the Competent Authority to take into account the factors  

set  out  therein  for  granting  or  refusing  the  permission.  These  

provisions contained in Section 22 are salutary in light of the scheme  

14

of 1971 Act and have to be followed. It has to be held, therefore, that  

for eviction  of a trespasser who is ‘occupier’  within the meaning of  

Section  2(e)(v)  of  1971 Act  from the  land or  building  or  any part  

thereof  in  a  declared  slum  area,  the  written  permission  of  the  

Competent Authority under Section 22(1)(a) is mandatorily required.

17. Insofar as present case is concerned, the first respondent  

set up the case in the plaint that the appellant was a trespasser in the  

subject  room.  The  first  appellate  court  has  also  recorded  a  

categorical finding, which has not been disturbed by the High Court,  

that the appellant was occupying the subject room  as trespasser.  In  

the circumstances, the suit was clearly not maintainable for want of  

written  permission  from  the  Competent  Authority  and  was  rightly  

dismissed by the trial court.     

18. In view of the above, the appeal is  allowed;  the judgment  

of the High Court dated September 20, 2004 affirming the judgment  

of the 8th Additional District Judge dated July 30, 2004 is set aside.  

The suit filed by the first respondent stands dismissed. However, this  

will  not  preclude  the  first  respondent  in  instituting  fresh  suit  or  

proceeding  for  eviction  against  the  appellant  after  obtaining  

15

necessary  written  permission  from  the  Competent  Authority.  The  

parties shall bear their own costs.         

  …………………….J.            (Aftab Alam)

    ………………….. J.        (R.M. Lodha)  

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 1,  2010

16