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

1988 Supreme(Kar) 523

Karnataka High Court
Judges : Rama Jois
BOMBAY SWADESHI STORES - Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF MYSORE - Respondent
W. P. 14009 Of 1988
Decided On : 12/01/1988

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of public premises and the application of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 in cases of eviction.

Headnote:

Public Premises - Eviction - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 - Section 2(e), Section 3 - The court discussed the definition of public premises and established that the premises belonging to the State Bank of Mysore is a public premises as defined in the Act. The court also highlighted the provisions of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959 to support its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, M/s. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd., sought to quash the order of eviction from the premises belonging to the State Bank of Mysore. The petitioner raised several grounds including the premises not being a public premises, the petitioner not being an unauthorized occupant, and violation of fundamental rights.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the premises belonging to the State Bank of Mysore is a public premises as defined in the Act. The court also found that the petitioner became an unauthorized occupant after the expiry of the lease period and rejected the petitioner's contentions regarding violation of fundamental rights.

Issues: The issues raised by the petitioner included the nature of the premises, the status of the petitioner as an unauthorized occupant, and the alleged violation of fundamental rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of public premises, the lease agreement, and the provisions of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959. The court also emphasized that the Act is meant for taking action against unauthorized occupants after the expiry of the lease period.

Final Decision: The court upheld the order of eviction, dismissing the petitioner's contentions and affirming the decision of the Appellate Authority.

RAMA JOIS, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner M/s. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd. , has presented this petition, praying for quashing the order of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and Appellate authority under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 (hereinafter for short called the 'act'), dismissing the respondent's appeal and confirming the order of the Competent Authority and the Estate Officer of the State Bank of Mysore, directing the eviction of the petitioner from the premises belonging to the first respondent-State bank of Mysore.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follow: The petitioner is a tenant in a portion of a multi-storeyed building belonging to the first respondent State Bank of Mysore. The premises was given on lease to the petitioner for a period of 15 years with effect from 1-7-1970. The period of lease came to an end with effect from 1-7-1985. Thereafter a notice was issued by the estate Officer of the State Bank of Mysore, appointed under Section 4 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be passed against it. The petitioner filed objections to the said notice. Thereafter the Estate Officer proceeded to pass an order of eviction against the petitioner rejecting the pleas raised by the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner presented an appeal before the I additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, who is the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has presented this petition.

( 3 ) IN the Writ Petition, the petitioner has urged the following grounds: (1) The premises is not a public premises within the meaning of that expression as defined in the act; (2) The petitioner is not an unauthorised occupant of the premises; (3) The Bank being an Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot seek to evict the petitioner unreasonably or arbitrarily; (4) The action of the Bank in instituting proceedings against the petitioner is discriminatory as no action has been taken by the first respondent against several other tenants; (5) The Estate Officer, being an Officer of State Bank of Mysore, is a biased person and therefore could not function as an Enquiry Officer; (6) The petitioner's fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19 (1) (c) of the constitution of India is violated by the impugned proceedings; and (7) The proceedings for eviction is violative of Article 300a of the Constitution of India. (8) The action for eviction was unreasonable.

( 4 ) IN support of the first contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that State bank of Mysore was an Independent Corporate body constituted under the provisions of State bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959 and therefore the premises cannot be regarded as a public premises as defined under the Act.

( 5 ) IN fact, as pointed out by the Appellate Authority, in Its order this objection was not at all raised before the original Authority. Even so the Appellate Authority has considered it in great detail and has rejected it. The expression Public Premises is defined by Section 2 (e) of the Act which reads: "public Premises" means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes (1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of ( i) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 in which not less than fiftyone per cent, of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government; and (ii) any Corporation not being a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 or a local Authority established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central government; and (2) in relation to the Union Territory of Delhi (i) any premises










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