Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 16) held that it is impermissible for the lessees of the trust to file a Writ Petition against the eviction when the Trust itself remained unsuccessful in seeking protection against the eviction.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar heard the case where two sets of proceedings culminated before the Telangana High Court, wherein, in the first set of proceedings initiated by one M/s. Kishan Chand Foundation Trust against the eviction proceedings initiated by the State ultimately resulted in dismissal by the Division Bench of the High Court, against which an SLP was later withdrawn by the Trust.

Despite no interim protection being granted to the Trust against the eviction by the Supreme Court while disposing of its SLP as withdrawn, a second leg of proceedings was initiated by the trust's lessees against the eviction before the High Court, which resulted in their favour, granting interim protection against the eviction.

Aggrieved by the Single and Division Bench decision of the High Court, which ruled in favour of the lessees, the State moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra observed that the High Court erred in ignoring the earlier proceedings initiated by the Trust itself, in which the Special Leave Petition against the Division Bench's judgment was disposed of as withdrawn, thereby refusing to interfere with the Division Bench's findings relating to the eviction. The Court held that despite the earlier proceedings, which culminated against the Trust, it was impermissible for its lessees to initiate a second set of proceedings by filing a writ petition against the eviction.

“…we are of the considered view that once the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Trust was disposed of as withdrawn…it was not open for the lessees to prefer a writ petition as the lessees are claiming possession through the Trust against whom the Division Bench of the High Court has already passed an order and the Special Leave Petition against the same has been withdrawn.”, the Court observed.

The Court indicated that the lessees have come forward for securing an interim order, which the Trust couldn't have secured.

“It is interesting and significant to notice that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Trust was disposed of as withdrawn on 09.09.2025 without interfering with the order passed by the Division Bench…reserving liberty in favour of the Trust to avail remedy of preferring a fresh suit, the present round of writ petition was preferred by the lessees and not by the Trust, on or after 11.09.2025. It appears, since the Trust could not have filed a writ petition, the lessees came forward for preferring a fresh set of writ petition only to secure an interim order which otherwise could have been considered only by the civil court considering the findings of the Division Bench...which was not interfered by this Court.”, the Court said.

Accordingly, the State's appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS VERSUS M.A. GARDEN FUNCTION HALL AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 941

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Devina Sehgal, Adv. Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR Ms. Megha Shaw, Adv. Mr. Aniket Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhisek Das, Adv.

Tags: