Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
S.B. Shukre, J.
M/s. Indian Coffee Workers Cooperative Society Limited – Petitioner
Versus
The Estate Officer, Western Zone, for the Life Insurance Corporation of India – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5051 of 2014
Decided On : 31-07-2018
Constitution Of India,1950 - Article 136 - Companies Act, 1956 - Section 617 - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - Section 2 (e) - Public Premises - Business of running a coffee house - Petitioner that in order to harass it initially respondent demanded manifold increase in rent and when petitioner expressed its inability to fulfill demand respondent issued notice provisions Public Premises Act thereby terminating tenancy of petitioner - By notice of termination possession of suit premises was also demanded - As petitioner did not respond positively to notice respondent initiated proceedings for eviction of petitioner from suit premises provisions of Public Premises Act - Proceedings were initiated as Cases proceedings culminated into an order of eviction petitioner from suit premises - An appeal was preferred by petitioner challenging order of respondent before District Judge Nagpur which was dismissed by District Judge - Writ petition was preferred against order of dismissal appeal by District judge before this Court - This Court allowed writ petition set aside orders authorities below on ground that adequate opportunity of hearing was not granted to petitioner and remanded matter back to respondent for deciding it afresh on merits – Held, This principle of law was applied to facts peculiar to case and it appears to have produced different result in nature of creation of two categories of cases to which Public Premises Act was held to be not applicable - But facts of this case showing that respondent was already government company unlike in tenancy was created would make it as not falling in any of those two categories - This is also view taken by ingle Judge of this Court in supra - Counsel for petitioner has also relied upon Bhatt - Central Bank of India reported in which Division Bench of this Court has that as petitioners father was original tenant in suit premises from year proceedings Public Premises Act against tenant were not competent - In my respectful submission view so taken being based upon facts peculiar to that case would have no application to present case for reason that at time when petitioner was inducted in premises as tenant in present case respondent was already Government Company as defined Section Companies Act and therefore premises belonged to Government Company which was not case in wherein tenanted premises were purchased by body corporate like Central Bank of India subsequently in year - In view discussion made thus far court find that suit premises are covered by provisions of Public Premises Act and so it cannot be said that proceedings initiated for eviction of premises occupied by petitioner after determination of authority to occupy them provisions Public Premises Act before respondent are not maintainable court of view that they are maintainable and as such respondent has committed no illegality in rejecting application filed by petitioner for dismissal of proceedings - There is no merit in petition - Petition dismissed
1. Petitioner is a Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. It is formed by the coffee workers and it engages itself in the business of running a coffee house in the city of Nagpur. In order to carry out its business of running a coffee house, it has taken on rent the premises situated on the ground floor of Indian Mutual Building, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur belonging to respondent no. 2. The petitioner was inducted as tenant in the suit premises with effect from 1st June 1958. It is not in dispute that on that date, respondent no. 2 was a Government company, in which not less than 51% of the paidup share capital was belonging to the Central Government, as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, which definition has also been reflected in Section 2 (e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, the “Public Premises Act”).
2. It is contended by the petitioner that in order to harass it, initially, respondent no. 2 demanded manifold increase in the rent and when the petitioner expressed its inability to fulfill the demand, respondent no. 2 issued a notice under the provisions of the Public Premises Act, thereby terminating tenancy of the petitioner. By the notice of termination, possession of the suit premises was also demanded. As the petitioner did not respond positively to the notice, respondent no. 2 initiated proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises under the provisions of the Public Premises Act. The proceedings were initiated as Cases No. 314/2010 and 314A/2010. The proceedings culminated into an order of eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of respondent no. 1 before the District Judge, Nagpur, which was dismissed by the District Judge. A writ petition was preferred against the order of dismissal of the appeal by the District judge before this Court. This Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the authorities below on the ground that adequate opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner and remanded the matter back to respondent no. 1 for deciding it afresh on merits.
3. After remand, as the fresh hearing began, the petitioner moved an application before respondent no. 1 for dismissal of the proceedings on the ground that the suit premises were excluded from the applicability of the Public Premises Act in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & its Estate Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 1509. According to the petitioner, the tenancy was created with effect from 1st June 1958 while the Public Premises Act came into being with effect from 16.9.1958 and such being the position, the suit premises fell in one out of two categories of the premises contemplated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr Suhas H. Pophale (supra) while considering applicability of the Public Premises Act and this category of the premises was excluded from its applicability.
4. The application was opposed by respondent no. 2 contending that the Public Premises Act became applicable to the suit premises the day on which the premises became public premises in terms of Section 2 (e) of the Act and this event took place on the date on which the Public Premises Act came into force and that day was of 16.9.1958. It was also submitted that the provisions of the Public Premises Act had overriding effect on any State Rent Law and, therefore, there was no way that the proceedings for termination of the tenancy and eviction from the tenanted premises could have been initiated under the State Rent Law before the forum provided under that law.
5. After considering the rival submissions, respondent no. 1 by the order passed on 28th July 2014, dismissed the application holding that the provisions of the Public Premises Act were applicable to the instant case and the proceedings in
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
