The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation to act with fairness and the need for a fair opportunity to correct or contradict statements prejudicial to one's view.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the III Additional District Judge, Bangalore in Misc. Appeal No. 94 of 1978 affirming the order of the Estate Officer under S. 5 of the Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Central Act No. 40 of 1971) (called shortly as "the Act" ). The facts are these:

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a private limited company. Its Branch Office is located in portion of the building belonging to the Indian Bank, Bangalore City Branch. The 3rd respondent is the Estate officer appointed by the Central Government under S. 3 of the Act. The Bank wanted the premises under the occupation of the petitioner for its own use. On Its March 1978, the Manager of the Bank issued a notice determining the tenancy. The petitioner was also called upon to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises. A reminder letter dated 11th July 1978 followed it. In both the said letters it was emphasized that the premises were required for locating the Staff Training Centre of the Bank and also for the use of the Regional Manager's office. On 20th Sept. 1978, the Estate Officer took up the case. He issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises. The grounds for evicting set out in the notice are those referred to in the letters written by the Bank on 1st March, 1978 and 1lth July, 1978.

( 3 ) THE Manager of the petitioner by reply dated 7th Oct. 1978 denied the requirements of the bank and further contended that it would cause greater hardship to him if he is evicted from the premises. He also challenged the validity of the notice. The Estate Officer posted the case for enquiry to 23rd Oct. 1978. But two days earlier, that is, on 21st Oct. 1978, the Manager filed a memo requesting the Estate Officer to adjourn the case by a month since due to unavoidable reasons it would not be possible for him to attend the matter on the said date of hearing. When the case was called on the 23rd, none was present on behalf of the petitioner. Bank was, however, represented by Sri S. Sarangaraj Kumar, the Manager of the local Branch. The Estate officer recorded his statement and posted the case to 28th Oct. 1978 intimating the same to the petitioner by a letter.

( 4 ) ON 28th Oct. 1978, on behalf of the petitioner, a memo was filed asking for further adjournment stating that its Manager Mr. Elias Fernandes was away in Mangalore in view of his father's serious ill health and subsequent death. In the said memo, a specific request was made to the Estate Officer to grant a copy of the statement recorded by him on 23rd Oct. 1978. The estate Officer reluctantly adjourned the case to 16th Nov. 1978. On the adjourned date a statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner contending inter alia that the Bank did not require the premises for the purpose for which it has asked for. The Estate Officer did not further record any evidence and he closed the case on the same date. The record shows that he made two orders on that day. One order was handwritten and another was typed. The typed order was communicated to the petitioner. The handwritten order begins with a preamble:

"case called at 11 A. M. Respondent was represented by Mr. Elias Fernandes, Manager and filed the written statement saying that he has nothing more to add than what is stated in the letter. "

Then there follows a brief reasoning for eviction with a conclusion that the premises under the occupation of the petitioner was required for the bona fide use of the Bank. This was not the order communicated to the petitioner. The order communicated to the petitioner on the other hand contains some more facts and also amplified reasons for making the order of eviction.

( 5 ) AGAINST the order of eviction, the petitioner appealed to the District Judge, Bangalore. It was contended in the appeal that the procedure followed by the Estate Officer was contrary to the principles of natural justice. It was complained, that the petitioner was not af

Click Here to Read the rest of this document