Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 825
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.
Savatram Rampratap Mills – Appellant(s)
Versus
Radheyshyam s/o Laxminarayan Goenka(D) Thr. LRs. & Anr. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 751 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9700 OF 2014 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9704 OF 2014
Decided On : 20-08-2018
IMPORTANT POINT
Proceeding under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 can only be initiated at a place specified by notification u/s 3(b).
Headnote:Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 – Section 3(b) – Estate Officer has to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to the public premises falling in the local limits specified in the notification – Instantly the Mill being situated at Akola, held, Estate Officer could initiate proceedings only at Akola. (Para 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
On 25.06.1993 and 04.04.2003, the Estate Officer of the appellant, now a Government of India Undertaking, issued the notices to respondent No.1’s predecessor, who was alleged to be in an unauthorized occupation of the appellant's premises, and called upon him to vacate the premises specified in the notices. He was, however, asked to attend the proceedings, pursuant to the notices, at Mumbai.
Respondent No.1’s predecessor felt aggrieved by the issuance of the notices, particularly, that part of the notices, which had directed him to attend the proceedings at Mumbai, and filed a writ petition in High Court of Bombay at Nagpur questioning the legality and validity of the notices.
The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, in consequence, quashed the impugned notices. It was held that the appellant would be free to initiate the proceedings under the Act in relation to public premises in question at Akola.
The Division Bench upheld the order passed by the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
Proceeding under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 can only be initiated at a place specified by notification u/s 3(b).
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.751 OF 2008
1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 16.01.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in L.P.A. No.46 of 2004 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld the order dated 25.11.2003 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.1795 of 2003 by which the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein was allowed and the order passed by the Estate Officer of the National Textile Corporation Ltd. (respondent No.2 herein) was set aside.
2. Few facts need to be mentioned infra for disposal of the appeal, which involves a short question.
3. The appellant was originally a privately owned Company situated at Akola (Maharashtra). It was engaged in the business of manufacture of cotton.
This Mill was later taken over by the National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra) Ltd., which is a subsidiary of NTCa Government of India Undertaking.
4. Since the appellant became the Government of India Undertaking, the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) became applicable to the appellant’s Mills.
5. On 25.06.1993 and 04.04.2003, the Estate Officer of the appellant issued the notices under Sections 4 and 7 (3) of the Act to respondent No.1’s predecessor, who was alleged to be in an unauthorized occupation of the appellant's premises, and called upon him to vacate the premises specified in the notices. He was, however, asked to attend the proceedings, pursuant to the notices, at Mumbai.
6. Respondent No.1’s predecessor felt aggrieved by the issuance of the notices, particularly, that part of the notices, which had directed him to attend the proceedings at Mumbai, and filed a writ petition in High Court of Bombay at Nagpur questioning the legality and validity of the notices.
7. The challenge to the notices was essentially on the ground that when the public premises in question is situated at Akola then the proceedings in relation to such public premises has to be held only at Akola rather than at Mumbai where no part of the cause of action had arisen.
8. In other words, the contention was that when admittedly the entire cause of action to initiate the proceedings under the Act had arisen at Akola within the local limits specified in notification issued under Section 3 where the public premises in question is situated, the respondent No.1's predecessor cannot be asked to attend the proceedings at Mumbai and the proceedings under the Act can only be validly initiated at Akola that being within the local limits specified in the notification issued under Section 3 of the Act.
9. The Single Judge of the High Court accepted the ground raised by the respondents herein (writ petitioners) and by his order dated 25.11.2003 allowed the writ petition, in consequence, quashed the impugned notices. It was held that the appellant would be free to initiate the proceedings under the Act in relation to public premises in question at Akola. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.
10. By impugned order, the Division Bench upheld the order passed by the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal, which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the appellantMills in this Court.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal finding no merit therein.
12. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench in the impugned order rightly upheld the view taken by the Single Judge calling for no interference in this appeal.
13. The short question, which arose for consideration before the High Court, was that when the public premises in question is situated at Akola, whether the proceedings in relation to such public prem
