Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik, JJ.
Syndicate Bank - Petitioners
Versus
Ramachandran Pillai & Ors. - Respondents
C.A. No. 50 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9876/2010)
Decided On : 04-01-2011
PP(E) Act, 1971 - Section 3 - Notice terminating - Entitled to the benefits of the guidelines - Premises forming part of a property - Appellant-Bank is the owner of a shop premises forming part of a property purchased by its predecessor - One tenant in occupation of said premises and he regularly paid the rent for the shop till the year - Appellant issued a notice terminating the monthly tenancy and called upon the said to vacate premises. As the said failed to vacate, action was initiated in the year - Public Premises Occupants Act, 1971 for evicting him - Respondents are his legal representatives, contested the proceedings – Held, Construed as laying down a proposition that the public sector undertakings and financial institutions to whom the guidelines were addressed, could willfully ignore or violate same. Whenever any action is proposed to be taken under the Public Premises Act - Authorities concerned are bound to keep the said guidelines extent possible on facts and circumstances of the respective case - If any public sector undertaking or financial institution is any of the guidelines are contrary to the provisions of the Act or otherwise unworkable or impractical - Seek modification of guidelines or have their own internal guidelines - What is held in this case is an unauthorized occupant or tenant against whom action is initiated under Public Premises Act, cannot resist the proceedings on ground of non-compliance with the said guidelines – Appeal is allow
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The appellant-Bank is the owner of a shop premises that was purchased by its predecessor in 1961, and the tenant, Ramakrishna Pillai, occupied the premises and paid rent regularly until 1997 (!) .
The Bank issued a notice in 1998 to terminate the tenancy, and proceedings for eviction were initiated in 2002 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, after the tenant failed to vacate (!) .
The legal heirs of the tenant contested the eviction, but the eviction order was initially passed and affirmed through various authorities, including the Estate Officer and Appellate Authority (!) .
The High Court overturned the eviction order, directing the Bank to review the case in light of guidelines issued by the Central Government regarding evictions from public premises, and to initiate fresh proceedings if the review concluded the respondents were not entitled to benefits under those guidelines (!) .
The Central Government issued guidelines in 2002 to prevent arbitrary evictions, emphasizing that the provisions of the Public Premises Act should primarily be used to evict unauthorized occupants, not tenants with legal rights or those occupying premises under contractual agreements (!) (!) .
The guidelines specify that legal tenants should not be considered unauthorized merely because of a notice of termination and that public authorities should follow due legal procedures, including rent revision and genuine grounds for eviction, similar to private landlords (!) (!) .
The guidelines are non-statutory and do not have the force of law; violations or non-compliance with these guidelines do not confer enforceable rights or remedies through courts, and enforcement of the Public Premises Act cannot be invalidated solely on grounds of guideline violations (!) (!) .
In this case, the respondents claimed ownership and denied their relationship with the tenant, which should have disqualified them from benefits under the guidelines. The High Court's reliance on the guidelines to set aside the eviction order was deemed improper, as the guidelines do not override statutory provisions or the lawful eviction process (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that authorities must act in accordance with the law, and the guidelines do not create a legal right or procedural requirement that can impede lawful eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act (!) (!) .
The appeal was allowed, the eviction order was restored, and the respondents were given time until the end of 2011 to vacate the premises, contingent upon them filing an undertaking to vacate voluntarily and paying any due rents or damages (!) .
These points encapsulate the core legal principles and facts as presented in the document.
ORDER :
R.V. Raveendran, J.
Heard. Leave granted.
2. The appellant-Bank is the owner of a shop premises forming part of a property purchased by its predecessor on 24.7.1961. One Ramakrishna Pillai (of whom the respondents are the legal representatives) was the tenant in occupation of the said premises and he regularly paid the rent for the shop till the year 1997. In the year 1998, the appellant issued a notice terminating the monthly tenancy and called upon the said Ramakrishna Pillai to vacate the premises. As the said Ramkrishna Pillai failed to vacate, action was initiated in the year 2002, under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (‘Public Premises Act' for short) for evicting him. The said Ramakrishna Pillai died and the respondents who are his legal representatives, contested the proceedings. The Estate Officer by order dated 3.10.2005 directed eviction. The order of eviction was affirmed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 19.8.2006. On further challenge by way of a revision petition by the respondents, the High Court passed the impugned order dated 16.12.2009 allowing the revision and setting aside the order of eviction. The High Court directed the Bank to reconsider and review the case of respondents as required by the guidelines issued by the Central Government (in regard to initiation of proceedings for eviction under the Public Premises Act), and if on such review, the Bank came to the conclusion that the respondents were not entitled to the benefits of the guidelines, then initiate fresh action for eviction. The said order is under challenge in this appeal by special leave.
3. The Central Government has issued "Guidelines to prevent arbitrary use of powers to evict genuine tenants from public premises under the control of public sector undertakings/financial institutions" vide resolution dated 30.5.2002 (gazetted on 8.6.2002). The guidelines read as under :-
(i) The provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (P.P. (E) Act, 1971] should be used primarily to evict totally unauthorized occupants of the premises of public authorities or subletees, or employees who have ceased to be in their service and thus ineligible for occupation of the premises.
(ii) The provisions of the P.P.(E) Act, 1971 should not be resorted to either with a commercial motive or to secure vacant possession of the premises in order to accommodate their own employees, where the premises were in occupation of the original tenants to whom the premises were let either by the public authorities or the persons from whom the premises were acquired.
(iii) A person in occupation of any premises should not be treated or declared to be an unauthorized occupant merely on service of notice of termination of tenancy, but the fact of unauthorized occupation shall be decided by following the due procedure of law. Further, the contractual agreement shall not be wound up by taking advantage of the provisions of the PP(E) Act, 1971. At the same time, it will be open to the public authority to secure periodic revision of rent in terms of the provisions of the Rent Control Act in each State or to move under genuine grounds under the Rent Control Act for resuming possession. In other words, the public authorities would have rights similar to private landlords under the Rent Control Act in dealing with genuine legal tenants.
(iv) It is necessary to give no room for allegations that evictions were selectively resorted to for the purpose of securing an unwarranted increase in rent, or that a change in tenancy was permitted in order to benefit particular individuals or institutions. In order to avoid such imputations or abuse of discretionary pow
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
