M.S.SONAK
Gajanan Shivram Lele – Appellant
Versus
Dena Bank – Respondent
1. Rule in each of these petitions. With the consent of and at the request of the learned counsels for the parties, Rule is being disposed of finally.
2. In each of these cases, proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (“said Act”) are pending before Mr. E. Rajshekhar, Estate Officer, the respondent no.2 herein. The petitioners have however invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, mainly urging the following:-
a) That the petitioners being pre-nationalisation tenants / occupants of the suit premises, cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of the said Act in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & its Estate Officer (AIR 2014 SC 1509);
b) That Mr. E. Rajshekhar, the Estate Manager had himself recommended the action of eviction against the petitioners and even proposed a line of action to secure the same. Therefore, there is a reasonable apprehension that Mr. E. Rajshekhar is biased.
3. In each of these petitions, the petitioners filed an application before the Estate Officer urging want of jurisdiction in view of the decision of the Supre
Delhi Financial Corpn. & Anr. vs. Rajiv Anand & Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 625).
M/s. J. Mohapatra & Co. & Anr. vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (AIR 1984 SC 1572).
A. K. Kraipak & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1970 SC 150).
Manak Lal vs. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi & Ors. (AIR 1957 SC 425).
S. Parthasarathi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. (1974) 3 SCC 459).
State of W.B. & Ors. vs. Shivananda Pathak & Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 513).
Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 10 SCC 539).
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.