Back
2001(8) Supreme 698
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
D.P. Mohapatra & Umesh C. Banerjee, JJ.
State of Maharashtra -Appellant
versus
Marwanjee P. Desai & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7677 of 1994
With
C.A. Nos. 7678, 7679, 7680, 7681, 7682 of 1994
Decided on 14-12-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : S.K. Dholakia, S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocates, S.V. Deshpande, P.S. Sudheer, Advocate for K.J. John, Amit Dhingra, D.P. Mohanty, S.A. Poonawala, Advocate for P.H. Parekh, Advocate/Advocates.
Held : While it is true, that the High Court placed reliance on the factum of the Competent Authority being an arm or wing of the Government and as such the latter cannot be permitted to lodge a protest against its own Order - this, however, in our view is a total misreading of the Statute and even in the event the same stands accepted, it will lead to a dangerous proposition having far reaching consequences. We, however, hasten to add that in the event the Statute desired it to be so then and in that event, consequences irrespective, we could have lent our concurrence to the view expressed by the High Court - unfortunately, however, Statute does not affirm such an interpretation, rather negates it. The language used as noticed above in Section 7 containing the provision of appeal has to be interpreted in its proper perspective and not in a manner restrictive. If the reasoning provided by the High Court is to be accepted then in that event the Statute shall have to be given a go-bye and to be rendered a complete otiose. The word "every", appearing in Section 7 immediately before the word "Order", stands out to be extremely significant so as to offer an opportunity of appeal in the event of there being an Order against the Government. (Para 7)
In that view of the matter the Order and Judgment under appeals cannot be sustained since the same is opposed to all norms of construction and interpretation of the Statute. The appeals are thus allowed and Judgment and Order impugned in the appeals stand set aside. Since appeals before the High Court were dismissed on a preliminary point and by reason of the consequence noticed herein before, we direct that the appeals be heard with utmost expedition by the concerned District Judge in terms of the requirement of the Statute within a period of four months from the date of communication of this Order. No costs. (Paras 11 & 12)
JUDGMENT
Banerjee. J.-The issue presently before this court pertains to the scope and ambit of Section 7 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 and its applicability therefor viz.-a-viz. an order of dropping of proceedings in terms of a notice issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1955 and resultant dismissal of the proceeding initiated for dispossession from the government premises. The High Court however, answered it in the negative and in favour of the occupants. Hence the appeals before this Court upon the grant of special leave.
2. Adverting to the factual score broadly it appears that various plots of land belonging to the State Government in Byculla Division, Bombay was leased out to several occupants and were in their occupation since 1968. Since the Government wanted the plot for a public purpose, the Competent Authority issued a show-cause notice to the occupants under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act, on 26th November, 1979 and the former however, dropped the proceeding by an order dated December 16, 1980. The State Government being dissatisfied therewith preferred an appeal under section 7 of the Act to the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, wherein a preliminary objection was raised by the occupants as to the maintainability of the appeal. The objection, however, was overruled by the learned Judge and thereupon the respondents herein moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution: the High Court in its turn allowed the writ petition upon recording inter alia the following : "neither under section 7 of the Act nor under any other provisions of the enactment, a right to prefer an appeal against any of the decisions of the competent authority has been conferred on the State Government."
3. Incidentally, it be noted that the introduction of the legislation (Bombay Public Premises Act) on to the Statute Book was effected solely with the purpose of empowering the Government to evict the unauthorised occupants from its property without taking recourse to any lengthy legal process by way of civil suits in the civil courts. The machinery provided for in terms of the statute, cannot but be in termed to be a quasi legal/judicial authority as we will shortly notice, but before so doing, let us have a look at the view as expressed by the High Court pertaining thereto :
[".... These provisions therefore, show that the powers to initiate the action for eviction or recovery of rent or damages to decide the dispute as well as to implement it are all vested in one and the same authority. It is therefore, no more than an extended arm or department of the government and for all purposes is the government itself ban this is so. For the State government to claim a right of appeal against the decision of the Competent Authority is to claim the said right against its own decision which claim is possibly untenable." (Emphasis supplied)]
4. It is at this juncture however, relevant extracts of the provisions as contained in Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 together with the Statements of Objects and Reasons of the enactment ought to be noticed for its proper appreciation.
"The Statements of Objects and Reasons read as below:
"Government has allotted accommodation to Government Servants and others in Government Premises like Bombay Development Department Chawls, Bombay. These premises have been in occupation for a long time and it has been noticed that the collection of rent is not entirely satisfactory. Similarly, there are cases of unauthorised occupation and sub-tenancies. It becomes difficult for government to recover vacant possession of premises when there are heavy arrears of rent or in case of unauthorised occupation or when there is a breach of conditions of allotment. The filing of suits against unauthorised occupants and for the recovery of rent arrears involves a lengthy process as a result of which there is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
