Judgment

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against judgment dated 6th February, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1552 of 2000. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 and held as follows:

11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Petitioner having acted on the agreement of sale and having paid the entire consideration was clearly not an unauthorized occupant within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act. That being so, there is no justification for applying the summary procedure under the Public Premises Act, nor has the Estate Officer any authority or jurisdiction to evict the Petitioner Under Section 5(2) of the Public Premises Act. There seems to be serious dispute about the title which dispute cannot be resolved under Public Premises Act. In our opinion, the invocation of the provisions of the Public Premises Act in the present case was wholly improper. The Estate Officer without any application of mind issued directions for putting locks and seals on the premises. In our opinion, due process of law in a case like the present necessarily implies the filing of suit by the Respondents for the enforcement of their alleged rights in respect of the subject premises.

2. While holding so the Division Bench of the High Court also set aside the order dated 23rd June, 2000 and notices dated 17th November, 2000 issued Under Sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Act') by Estate Officer, National Textile Corporation (MN) Ltd.

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

3.1 The Respondent No. 1 filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 1552 of 2000 before the Bombay High Court challenging the proceedings initiated by the Appellant against it (Respondent No. 1) Under Section 5A (for removal of movable structures/fixtures) and Under Section 4(2)(b) read with Section 7(1) and (3) (for damages and eviction) of the 1971 Act, in respect of subject premises i.e. land admeasuring 2921 sq. yards with structures thereon bearing Nos. 96 and 97 situated at the premises of Shri Sitaram Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'SSML' for short) at N.M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai.

3.2 In the said writ petition, Respondent No. 1 submitted that the subject premises belonged to the erstwhile owner, SSML. On 25thMarch, 1975 an agreement to sell the subject premises was entered into between Respondent No. 1 and SSML and the full consideration of Rs. 25 Lakhs was paid by Respondent No. 1 to SSML. On 1st April, 1975 possession of the subject property was handed over to Respondent No. 1 and has since then remained with Respondent No. 1.

3.3 The management of the textile undertaking of SSML was taken over by the Central Government w.e.f. 18th October, 1983 under the Textile Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the, 1983 Act') and the Appellant corporation was appointed as its Custodian. Later, the right, title and interest in relation to the textile undertakings got transferred and vested in Central Government under the Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the, 1995 Act') w.e.f. 1st April, 1995.

3.4 On 23rd June, 2000, the Estate Officer of the Appellant Corporation passed an order under Sub-section (3) of Section 5A of the 1971 Act treating the subject premises as 'public premises' and directed Respondent No. 1 to remove the movable structures and fixtures from the said premises. Thereafter, on 17th November, 2000 the said authority issued two show cause notices to Respondent No. 1 Under Section 4(1) and 7(3) of the 1971 Act calling upon Respondent No. 1 to show cause why it should not be evicted from the subject premises and why it should not be made liable to pay damages. The Appellant Corporation initiated the