G H A

necessary as dispossession is different from termination of lease – However, dispossession having taken place, lessee ought to have filed suit within three years of date of dispossession – Suit having been instituted after nearly eighteen years was clearly barred by limitation – Courts below fell in error in holding the suit as within time. The subject-land admeasuring 1891.64 square metres was leased to respondent no. 2 by the appellant Port-Trust. However, as the lesse committed default in payment of the outstanding amount and interest, the lease was terminated by order dated 08-08-1977 w.e.f. 13.12.1978. Possession of the subject land was taken under the Panchnama dated 14.12.1978, a copy whereof was sent to the lessee on 20-12-1978 with a certificate that the possession had been taken. Respondent no. 1 filed suit Suit No. 77 of 1996 for a declaration and permanent injunction, questioning the termination of the lease by the appellant Port-Trust. The plaintiff-respondent no. 1 claimed that he had purchased the suit land from respondent no. 2 in the year 1991, and on that basis had asked the Port-Trust in the year 1994 to transfer the lease rights in his favour. The trial court decreed the suit. The first appellate court held that the lease had not been validly terminated and the same continued to be subsisting. However, it set aside the part of the judgment of the trail court whereby it has directed to transfer the lease rights in favour of plaintiff-respondent no. 1. The second appeal of the Port-Trust having been dismissed, it filed the instant appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is manifest that there is no clear finding of fact regarding possession of the suit property having continued with the lessee, no matter the lease stood terminated and a panchnama evidencing takeover of th