2017 Supreme(Bom) 264

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.G. KETKAR, J.
Mrs. Rani Sevakram, since deceased – Petitioner
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 2442 OF 1994 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1422 OF 1996, CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1109 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION 1422 OF 1996, CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 884 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION 1422 OF 1996
Decided On : 28-02-2017

Important Point: The definition of unauthorized occupation contained in Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act would cover a case where a person has entered into occupation of the public premises legally as a tenant under a lease but whose tenancy has expired or has been determined in accordance with law.

Headnote:Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Sections 4, 5, 7 and 8-P.P. Rules, Rule 8-Eviction of unauthorised occupants.-Since respondents are in unauthorised occupation and use of suit premises from 1.9.1983 hence damages for unauthorised use and occupation assessed at Rs. one lac just and proper.

       It is not in dispute that the authorities below have concurrently found that Sevakram and Corporation are in unauthorised use and occupation of the suit premises from 1.9.1983. The said building is situate at junction of Wodehouse and Madam Cama Road, opposite Regal Cinema, Mumbai- 400005. The suit premises admeasures 1700 sq.ft. Though liberty was granted by the Court to the parties to produce sufficient material for determining reasonable compensation, no material is produced by Sevakram and Corporation. Applying the principles laid down in Atmaram Properties (P) Ltd. (supra) and Super Max International Private Ltd. (supra) as also having regard to the nature, size and standard of accommodation, location and use for commercial purposes and fair market rent which Insurer would have realized if the said premises were let out to a private person, damages assessed at Rs. One Lakh per month will be reasonable. The Court has already directed Corporation to deposit Rs. One Lakh per month after taking into consideration various factors. In view thereof, Court does not find any ground is made out for invocation of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, more so when the authorities below have concurrently recorded a finding that Sevakram is in unauthorized use and occupation of the suit premises from 1.9.1983. Accordingly, damages are quantified at the rate of Rs. One Lakh per month from 1.12.2015 onwards. As far as Rs. 10,000/- per month deposited in nationalized Bank as per order dated 23.4.1998 is concerned, Insurer is permitted to withdraw that amount together with accrued interest.

       Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Sections 4, 5, 7 and 8-P.P. Rules, Rule 8-Central Government Guide- lines dated 30.5.2002-Guideline 2(i), (iii), (v)-Eviction of unauthorised occupants.-Where quit notice was duly served on recorded tenant for default in payment of rent therefore eviction proceedings is valid.

       Perusal of Clause 2(i) shows that the Public Premises Act is meant to evict totally unauthorised occupants of public premises or subletees. Clause 2(iii) provides that it will be open to the public authority to secure periodic revision of rent in terms of the provisions of the Rent Control Act. In other words, the public authorities would have rights similar to private landlords under the Rent Control Act in dealing with genuine legal tenants.

       In the present case, tenant was inducted in the suit premises as a tenant in the year 1952. Thus, she entered into occupation of the suit premises under a valid authority. In 1971, building where the suit premises is situate, was taken over by Insurer. It is not a dispute that the suit premises belongs to Insurer and is a public premises within the meaning of the Public Premises Act. It is also established that by notice dated 19.7.1983, tenancy of "S" was terminated/ determined. Thus, the definition of expression `unauthorised occupation` contained in Section 2(g) covers a case where a person like "S" who was inducted as a tenant and thus had entered into occupation legally under valid authority but who continues in occupation after the authority under which he was put in occupation has expired or has been determined. The definition of unauthorised occupation contained in Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act would, therefore, cover a case where a person has entered into occupation of the public premises legally as a tenant under a lease but whose tenancy has expired or has been determined in accordance with law.

       Once the premises in question becomes public premises, public authority can resort to provisions of the Public Premises Act for eviction of any unauthorized occupant. The entities specified in Section 2(e)(1) and (2) cannot be asked to resort to the provisions of either the Bombay Rent Act or the Maharashtra Rent Act on the ground that the occupant was inducted prior to the premises becoming the public premises.

       That will be contrary to the provisions of Sections 2(e), (2)(g) and 15 of the Public Premises Act as also it will be contrary to the statement and objects and reasons for which the Public Premises Act was enacted. Even if a person is inducted prior to 16.9.1958 or prior to the premises becoming a public premises, once it becomes a public premises in teems of Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act, his tenancy rights are attorned to the concerned entity specified in Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act. Thus, the Public Premises Act is applicable to the premises specified in Section 2(e) as also the entities specified in Section 2(e) can invoke the Public Premises Act by approaching the Estate Officer appointed under the Public Premises Act. AIR 1991 SC 855 and (2002) 8 SCC 182, Foll. and (2014) 4 SCC 657, Ref.