SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 532

2011 (4) Supreme 210
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
Cantonment Board and another — Appellants
versus
Church of North India — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1957 of 2003
Decided on : 13-5-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
A point about the jurisdiction can be raised even in Supreme Court even if it was not raised any time earlier.

Headnote:(a) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section …… (determination of lease) – On the period of lease being over, the lessee becomes an unauthorized occupant – The lesser thereafter becomes entitled to take recourse to law and take possession of the premises. (Para 8)

        (b) Constitution of India – Article 136 – A point about the jurisdiction can be raised even in Supreme Court even if it was not raised any time earlier – A defect, with respect to the lack of inherent jurisdiction is basic and fundamental and validity of such an order can be challenged at any stage, even in execution or in collateral proceedings. (Paras 11, 13)

        (2004) 8 SCC 706 – Referred

        (c) Public Premises Act 1971 – Section 2(e) – Premises belong to the Union of India and only being managed by the Cantonment Board – They are ‘Public Premises’ under the Act. (Para 14)

        (d) Cantonment Act 1924 – Section 116A – Premises under control and management of the Cantonment Board – Defence Estate Officer authorized by Central Government issuing rent to respondent – Estate Officer did have jurisdiction to take action against the respondent under the Public Premises Act. (Paras 16, 17)

        (e) Public Premises Act – Sections 2(g) and 4 – Premises being public premises and lease period being over, respondent was in unauthorized occupation under section 2(g) – Seven day’s notice u/s 4 was valid – Sections 106 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 requiring 15 day’s notice do not apply. (Para 18)

       Facts of the case:

        1. The respondent herein is running a Mission Hospital at Nasirabad in the State of Rajasthan. The Hospital building initially belonged to the East India Company. Later on, it belonged to the Government of India and it is under the management of the Nasirabad Cantonment.

        2. The appellants needed the premises. After the expiry of the lease on 31.3.1984, the Estate Officer of the Cantonment Board stopped accepting the rent and served a notice of seven days as required under Section 4 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 on 14.3.1984 and again on 27.3.1984.

        3. The respondent filed a Civil Suit to challenge the notice. The respondent filed an application to deposit the rent in Civil Court but that was not entertained and the Civil Suit came to be dismissed on 31.7.1987 and the respondent applied for six months time to vacate which was accepted by the appellant.

        4. The respondent, however, did not vacate the premises as assured, and therefore, the appellant filed a fresh application under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act before the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer considered the objections filed by the respondent and then passed an order of eviction.

        5. The appeal against the order of the Estate Officer was dismissed by the District Judge and hence, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which was allowed.

       Finding of the Court:

        Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Gokhale J. —

This appeal by Special Leave seeks to challenge the order passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Rajasthan in D.B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 753 of 1993 dated 17.5.2002 whereby the appeal filed by the appellants herein against the order passed by a Single Judge of that High Court dated 13.8.1993 in Writ Petition No. 5281 of 1991 filed by the first respondent came to be dismissed. The Single Judge had allowed respondent’s writ petition.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

The respondent herein is running a Mission Hospital at Nasirabad in the State of Rajasthan. The Hospital building initially belonged to the East India Company. Later on, it belonged to the Government of India and it is under the management of the Nasirabad Cantonment which is a cantonment governed under the Cantonment Act, 1924. The case of the appellants is that the respondent was given the concerned premises under a lease deed dated 1.4.1982 which expired on 31.3.1984. The rent for the premises was fixed at Rs. 75 per month. The lease deed provided in clause 2 (iii) that the lessee shall vacate the premises before the expiry of the lease as and when required by the Cantonment Board provided seven days’ notice to this effect is given in writing.

3. The case of the appellants is that the premises were not being utilized fully and that the respondent had taken some other premises also. The appellants needed the premises. After the expiry of the lease on 31.3.1984, the Estate Officer of the Cantonment Board stopped accepting the rent.

4. The appellants served a notice of seven days as required under Section 4 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Public Premises Act’) on 14.3.1984 and again on 27.3.1984. The respondent filed a Civil Suit No.10/1985 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge No.1 at Ajmer to challenge the notice. The respondent filed an application to deposit the rent in Civil Court but that was not entertained. The Civil Suit came to be dismissed on 31.7.1987 and the respondent applied for six months time to vacate which was accepted by the appellant. The order passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer in that matter on 31.7.1987 reads as follows:-

“31.07.1987: Present, Counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant seeks six months time to vacant the disputed property, the learned counsel for the non- applicant is agreeable for this request. Hence, it is directed that non-applicant will not dispossess the applicant from the disputed premises, and he will be at liberty to initiate proceedings for the same thereafter. This application is disposed of with this order, and the file to be consigned to record along with this decision.”

5. The respondent, however, did not vacate the premises as assured, and therefore, the appellant filed a fresh application under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act before the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer considered the objections filed by the respondent and then passed an order of eviction under Section 5 of that Act on 26.6.1991. The order passed by the Estate Officer in para 7 thereof, notes that the respondent did raise the question of jurisdiction of the Estate Officer but only on the ground that the jurisdiction to evict was with the Civil Court and the action should be taken under the Transfer of Property Rules. The Estate Officer rejected that submission holding that the Public Premises Act was a special Act and it will override the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The appeal against the order of the Estate Officer filed under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act was dismissed by the District Judge and hence, the respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 5281 of 1991 before a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court.

6. The Learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition took the view that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 applied to the Cantonments Boards. The pa

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top