IMPORTANT POINT
High Court in exercise of its extra- ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can take cognizance of the entire facts and if there be any unfair advantage gained by a party priorly, before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court can require the party to shed the unfair gain before granting relief.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Art. 226-Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971-Section 7-Order of eviction of original tenants as also appellant Company holding it as unauthorised occupant being unlawful sub-tenant-Order for damages -Appeals-Order of eviction upheld-Order relating to damages reversed-Writ petition filed by appellant-Order reversing claim for damages not challenged-Matter remanded to Estate Officer for fresh decision-Plea of respondent for an opportunity to raise its claim for damages-Allowed-Appeal against -Whether judgment of High Court in setting aside order of eviction while allowing negated claim of damages, is legally sustainable ?-(Yes)
       Held : It is well-settled that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can take cognisance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and substantial justice. This jurisdiction of the High Court, being extraordinary, is normally exercisable keeping in mind the principles of equity. One of the ends of the equity is to promote honesty and fair play. If there be any unfair advantage gained by a party priorly, before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court, the court can take into account the unfair advantage gained and can require the party to shed the unfair gain before granting relief. What precisely has been done by the learned Single Judge, is clear from the above emphasised words which be re-read with advantage. The question of claim to damages and their ascertainment would only arise in the event of the Life Insurance Corporation, respondent, succeeding to prove that the appellant Company was an unlawful sub-tenant and therefore in unauthorised occupation of public premises. If the finding were to go in favour of the appellant Company and it is proved to be a lawful sub-tenant and hence not an unauthorised occupant, the direction to adjudge the claim for damages would be rendered sterile and otiose. It is only in the event of the appellant Company being held to be an unlawful sub-tenant and hence an unauthorised occupant that the claim for damages would be determinable. We see therefore no fault in the High Court adopting such course in order to balance the equities between the contestants especially when it otherwise had power of superintendance under Article 227 of the Constitution in addition. We cannot be oblivious to the fact that when the occupation of the permises in question was a factor in continuation the liability to pay for the use and occupation thereof, be it in the form of rent or damages, was also a continuing factor. The cause of justice, as viewed by the High Court, did clearly warrant that both these questions be viewed inter-dependently. For those who seek equity must bow to equity. (Para 11)
       Besides, it is noteworthy that the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, had negatived the claim of damages on taking a technical view of the matter because in his view the assessment had been made more on assumptions than on concrete evidence which was required to be adduced. Nowhere was the finding recorded by that Court that damages were altogether not due or that the appellant Company was not liable; the period involved therein being from 1.3.1979 to 28.2.1992. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

Punchhi, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal is virtually against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated 9-11-1993 passed in Writ Petition No. 2949 of 1993 against which Letters Petent Appeal No.1 of 1994 was dismissed summarily by a Division Bench of that Court on 14-1-1994.

3. The learned Single Judge was spared the ordeal of recounting the checkered history of the litigation between the parties because of the reasonable stand taken by both the sides. We assume that we too have been spared likewise and the parties continue to be reasonable. It so happens that there is a building known as Great Social Building situate at 60, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Bombay, which once belonged to the Great Social Life Insurance Co. Ltd. It appears that M/s. Interseas Corporation had taken on rent the fourth floor of the said building sometime in the year 1944. A portion carved out therefrom by a wooden partition was apparently sublet by M/s. Interseas Corporation to the appellant M/s. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. in July 1951. It also appears that M/s. S.M. Enterprises also became sub-lessees of M/s. Interseas Corporation of another portion of the property.

4. On the setting up of the Life Insurance Corporation of India under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 all the assets and liabilities of the said Great Social Life Insurance Company were taken over by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. It is appellants case that in consequence thereof, M/s. Interseas Corporation became the tenant of the Life Insurance Corporation and the appellant company became the sub-tenant by operation of law in relation to the premises in question. Further it is the case of the appellant company that it has become a deemed tenant under the respondent Life Insurance Corporation because of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance of 1959.

5. Legal proceedings were initiated by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the respondent herein, against the appellant Company and one of its shareholders-cum-Directors, for possession of the premises in question under the provisions of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the Act ). The Estate Officer after conducting the requisite inquiry as contemplated under the Act passed an order of eviction of the original tenants as also the appellant-Company holding it as unauthorised occupant being unlawful sub-tenant of the original tenant. The Estate Officer also passed an order for damages to the tune of about Rs. 12 lakhs.

6. Being aggrieved against the said order of eviction as well as damages, appeals were preferred by the appellant Company as well as the original tenant before the Principal Bench, City Civil Court, Bombay. The appellate Court upheld the order of eviction but reversed the order relating to damages, coming to the conclusion that there was no evidence in support of the order. The said order of eviction was thus challenged by the appellant Company before the High Court of Bombay. But the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India, did not choose to file any Writ Petition challenging those orders whereby its claim for damages had been negatived by the appellate Court.

7. The learned Single judge of the High Court examined the files relating to the cases and entertained the belief that the Estate Officer had not dealt with the matter satisfactorily inasmuch as material from the earlier litigation, which had been fought prior to the instant proceedings, had per se been inducted into the files and there was hardly any effective or clear discussion on the issue whether the appellant Company was an unlawful sub-tenant and therefore in unauthorised occupation. On the basis thereof, the learned Single Judge expressed his views that the interest of justice required that the matter be remanded to the Estate Officer for fresh decision. It is at that juncture that the learned counsel appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document