Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.C.DAGA, J.
Smt Indira Chetan Puri – Petitioner
Versus.
LIC of India, Western Zonal Office – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 5469 OF 2008.
Decided on: 9TH September,2008.
Public Premises - Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants - Public Premises Act, 1971 - Section 3, Section 5(1), Section 7(1)(2-A), Section 5-A(2) - The court discussed the application of the Public Premises Act, 1971, particularly focusing on the definition of 'unauthorised occupation' under Section 2(g) and the grounds for termination of tenancy. The court also considered the guidelines issued by the Central Government and their advisory nature, as well as the limitations of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant of premises owned by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, faced eviction due to the construction of a weather-shed and fencing without proper authorization. The Estate Officer ordered eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages, which was upheld by the City Civil Court. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grounds for termination of tenancy were established based on the unauthorized construction and fencing, and rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding proportionality and valuation report. The court emphasized the limitations of interference under Article 227 and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues involved the unauthorized construction and fencing by the petitioner, the grounds for termination of tenancy under the Public Premises Act, and the applicability of guidelines issued by the Central Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grounds for termination of tenancy were established based on the unauthorized construction and fencing, and emphasized the limitations of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court stayed the eviction order for a limited period subject to certain conditions.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Perused the petition.
3. This petition is directed against the order dated 1.7.2008 passed by the Principle Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court in Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 2005, confirming the order of eviction dated 13.4.2005 passed by the Estate Officer appointed under Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ("the Act of 1971" for short).
THE FACTUAL MATRIX:-
4. The factual matrix reveal that the Petitioner is a tenant in respect of the premises situate at Village No.5, Row No.3, Ground Floor, Jeevan Bima Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400 103, owned by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai ("the L.I.C." for short) since 1962.
5. The L.I.C. through its Advocate issued notice dated 12.9.1996 terminating petitioner’s tenancy on the ground that the Petitioner has constructed a weather-shed and has also erected a fence around the shed to prevent the respondent’s staff from coming near it. The Petitioner was in arrears of rent for September-October, 1993. The petitioner claims to have replied vide his letter dated 1.11.1996. It appears that from June, 1997 onwards the L.I.C. has not been accepting rent.
6. The L.I.C. filed application for eviction on 20.5.1999 before the Estate Officer being Case No.182 18A of 1999. The Estate Officer issued show cause notice dated 1.7.1999 under the Act of 1971.
7. The petitioner filed written statement contending that the weather-shed was in existence since 1976 and that the fencing was done in pursuance and in accordance with the permission granted vide letter dated 9.9.1976 and that the construction of temporary shed which is shelter for her car is opened from all sides and does not constitute any building or structure forbidden by Public Premises Act, 1971. The Petitioner also pleaded that she has paid rent and produced documentary proof in respect of payment of rent for the period from September, October, 1996.
8. The Estate Officer framed issues. Both parties were permitted to lead evidence. The Estate Officer passed a reasoned order under Section 5 (1) of the Act on 13.4.2005 and directed recovery of arrears of rent under Section 7 (1) (2-A), damages under Sections 7 92) (2-A) and 5-A (2) of the Act.
9. Being aggrieved by the above order dated 13.4.2005, the Petitioner filed the statutory appeal before the City Civil Court, Bombay being Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 2005 and obtained stay of the execution of the eviction order. The appeal was finally heard by the City Civil Court and came to be dismissed on 1.7.2008 by the impugned order.
10. Not being satisfied with the above order, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said order.
SUBMISSIONS: -
11. Mr Narula, learned counsel for the Petitioner urged that the construction of weather-shed open from all sides consisting of asbestos sheets standing on the poles fixed with nuts and bolts cannot be said to be a permanent structure or a building in the nature of and within the meaning of Section 5(A) of the Act. He further submits that the action of eviction resorted to by the L.I.C. is a disproportionate punishment to the Petitioner and termination of tenancy is highly illegal and high-handed. He tried to press into service the doctrine of proportionality by the L.I.C. and went on to urge that the drastic power of presumption and forfeiture should be exercised only by way of last resort. He further submits that the car shed was constructed in or about 1976 admeasuring 10 x 40 ft. and went on to urge that the Petitioner could have been asked to remove the same.
12. Mr Narula also tried to rely upon the guide-lines issued by the Central Government and went on to urge that as per the Division Bench of this Court, guide-lines under Section 21 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 ("the LIC Act for short") are and they are binding on the L.I.C. He further urged that the power to term
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
