The judgment establishes the importance of evidence in supporting a plea of adverse possession and emphasizes the mandatory requirement of a proper notice to show cause in eviction proceedings.

Headnote:
Companies Act - Government Company - 1956 - [Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, section 617] - [Companies Act, 1956, section 617] - The judgment discusses the application of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the Companies Act, 1956 in a dispute regarding unauthorised occupation of premises. The court analyzed the basis of eviction, the plea of adverse possession, and the mandatory requirements of the statute, ultimately quashing the eviction proceedings due to flawed show cause notice.
Fact of the Case:

The dispute involved unauthorised occupation of premises by the respondent, based on a claim of adverse possession and flawed show cause notice.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the reasoning on adverse possession to be unsustainable and the show cause notice to be fundamentally flawed, leading to the quashing of the eviction proceedings.
Issues: The issues included the basis of eviction, plea of adverse possession, and the mandatory requirements of the statute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plea of adverse possession must be supported by evidence and that a proper notice to show cause is a mandatory requirement, ultimately quashing the eviction proceedings due to the flawed show cause notice.
Final Decision: The civil revision application was dismissed, the observations on adverse possession were overruled, and the eviction proceedings were quashed due to the flawed show cause notice. The applicant was directed to pursue remedies for securing possession of the premises.

JUDGMENT - Dr. CHANDRACHUD D.Y., J.:---The applicant before the Court is a Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which, 81.57% of the share capital is stated to be held by the Central Government, whereas, the balance 18.05% has been held by the Governments of the State of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. The applicant, it has been stated, was formed for the purpose of taking over a company incorporated in the U.K. by the name of CPMO. CPMO held mining leases which were also taken over by the applicant.

2. The dispute in the present case relates to quarter No. 446 situated at Wahitola Mansar, Tahsil Ramtek, which, according to the applicant is in the unauthorised occupation of the respondent. On 29th January, 1982, the applicant moved the Estate Officer, appointed under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for an order of eviction against the respondent on the ground that he was in unauthorised occupation of the aforesaid premises. On 20th July, 1982, a notice came to be issued to the respondent to vacate the premises and it would be necessary to note that the basis on which the respondent was called upon to vacate the premises, was that the respondent ought to have handed over vacant possession of the quarter to the company, when he ceased to be in service. Therefore, the foundation of the action which was proposed was that the respondent was at some point of time in the service of the company and that upon the expiration of the period of his service, he was liable to vacate the quarter. The Estate Officer thereupon issued a notice dated 16th December, 1982 and that notice also, which was issued under section 4(1) of the Act, specifies as the basis of the proposed action, that the respondent had left the service of the applicant 25 years earlier.

3. The respondent filed his reply to the eviction proceedings on 13th August, 1983 and in that reply, it was stated that neither the respondent nor any of his predecessors had ever served either with the applicant-company or with the predecessor-in-title of the applicant, which as already noted, was a British Company, by the name of CPMO. The case of the respondent is that his ancestors had resided since about a hundred years prior thereto in an old house, which was situated in Mauza Parsoda. The erstwhile British Company demolished the house since the area was required for the purpose of a siding and in lieu thereof, the present house was allotted to the family. The respondent claims that in the year 1942, the Mine Manager of the British Company had called upon his father to vacate the earlier house which was required for constructing a siding and alternative premises were offered in lieu of the earlier premises. The occupation of the premises was hence not traceable to employment with the company.

4. The Estate Officer allowed the application for eviction on 15th November, 1986 and held that the respondent was in unauthorised occupation of the premises. The respondent was ordered to vacate the premises and to pay damages @ Rs. 40/- per month w.e.f. 1-8-1982.

5. The respondent thereupon preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under the provisions of section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. By the impugned order passed by the learned 9th Additional District Judge, Nagpur on 16th March, 1995, the appeal came to be allowed. The learned Additional District Judge was of the view that it was for the appellant to establish as to what was the mode of allotment of the premises to the respondent and when the term of allotment had expired or was determined. The show cause notice was vague, because it merely stated that the respondent was in unauthorised occupation since over 25 years. The learned Additional District Judge then took notice of the case of the respondent which was that the premises were in the occupation of his father and thereafter of the res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document