Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10979 of 2022
Decided On : 05-06-2023
Amendment - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - [Flat No. 45, Garage No. 3 along with Room No. 1, 3 and 5 in the building known as Mayfair Gardens, Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006] - [Sections 5, 7, 8 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971] - The court upheld the Estate Officer's decision to allow the amendment application seeking enhancement of the claim for damages, stating that the amendment was necessary considering the long pendency of the case and the factors to be considered for assessment of damages under Rule 8 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Rules, 1971. The court found that no prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner, as both parties would be required to lead evidence to substantiate their respective cases, and the Petitioner would have an opportunity to file additional written statement in response to the fresh show-cause-notice. The court sustained the orders allowing the amendment and directing issuance of fresh show-cause-notice, upholding the fresh show-cause-notice dated 29.07.2022, while keeping all contentions and issues of the Petitioner open before the Estate Officer.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a tenant of the subject premises since 1940, challenged the orders allowing an amendment application and directing issuance of fresh show-cause-notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The Respondent sought eviction and damages for unauthorized occupation of the subject premises, and the case had been pending for over 20 years before the Estate Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment was necessary considering the long pendency of the case and the factors to be considered for assessment of damages under Rule 8 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Rules, 1971. It upheld the orders allowing the amendment and directing issuance of fresh show-cause-notice, while keeping all contentions and issues of the Petitioner open before the Estate Officer.
Issues: Challenge to the orders allowing an amendment application and directing issuance of fresh show-cause-notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the decision to allow the amendment application, stating that the amendment was necessary considering the long pendency of the case and the factors to be considered for assessment of damages under Rule 8 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Rules, 1971. It found that no prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner, as both parties would be required to lead evidence to substantiate their respective cases, and the Petitioner would have an opportunity to file additional written statement in response to the fresh show-cause-notice.
Final Decision: The court sustained the orders allowing the amendment and directing issuance of fresh show-cause-notice, upholding the fresh show-cause-notice dated 29.07.2022, while keeping all contentions and issues of the Petitioner open before the Estate Officer.
JUDGMENT :
1. By the present Writ Petition, Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records in relation to the impugned show cause notice dated 29.07.2022 (Exh. “C”) and after examining the legality or validity thereof quash and set aside the impugned show cause notices under Form ‘A’ and ‘F’ of the Act.”
2. Order dated 08.07.2022 allows the amendment application filed by Respondent in the proceedings before the Estate Officer under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, “the said Act”); order dated 22.07.2022 directs issuance of fresh show-cause-notice to the Petitioner; show-cause-notice dated 29.07.2022 has been issued to the Petitioner. These are under challenge.
3. The subject premises is Flat No. 45, Garage No. 3 along with Room No. 1, 3 and 5 in the building known as Mayfair Gardens, Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006. Petitioner is tenant of the subject premises since 1940. In 1962, Respondent acquired the building including the subject premises from its predecessor-in-title by indenture of conveyance and Petitioner's tenancy was attorned in favour of Respondent. The said Act was enacted in 1971. Pursuant to enactment of General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972, Respondent was converted into a Government Company within the meaning of Section 3 read with Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. On 09.02.2001 Respondent issued first termination notice acknowledging that Petitioner was a monthly tenant and called upon the Petitioner to vacate the subject premises within one month from the date of the said notice. Petitioner replied to the notice seeking reasons for issuance of the same. On 18.02.2002, Respondent issued second termination notice stating the reason that the subject premises were required for accommodating the increasing staff of the Respondent. On March 28.02.2002, Petitioner replied to the notice refuting its contentions.
5. In 2003 Respondent filed a composite application under Sections 5 and 7 of the said Act read with the Rules thereunder before the Estate Officer seeking order of eviction against Petitioner to vacate possession of the subject premises and order for payment of damages under Section 8 of the said Act along with interest thereunder till vacant and peaceful possession of the subject premises was given along with costs. On 08.06.2004 Petitioner filed its written statement and contested the application. Witness Action commenced. On 07.06.2017 affidavit of evidence of Respondent's witness was filed. Cross-examination of Respondent's witness i.e. Mr. Ratan Kumar Purohit commenced on 14.12.2018 and was carried upto 13.06.2019 and remains incomplete as on date.
6. On 21.04.2022 Respondent filed an amendment Application seeking enhancement of the claim post-commencement of trial. Petitioner filed its reply resisting the amendment application on various grounds. By order dated 08.07.2022, the Estate Officer allowed the amendment application filed by the Respondent. By further order dated 22.07.2022, the Estate Officer directed issuance of fresh show-cause-notices under the said Act. On 29.07.2022 fresh show-cause-notice was issued to the Petitioner. The twin orders dated 08.07.22 and 22.07.22 along with the fresh show-cau
The court established that the issuance of eviction notices under the Public Premises Act requires the Estate Officer to demonstrate prima facie satisfaction based on adequate material, and that publ....
High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 requires proving gross illegality or irregularity for intervention; cancellation of lease upheld based on violations of lease conditions.
The duty of the advocate to obtain relevant instructions and the need to avoid penalizing litigants for unintentional omissions.
Public bodies must act fairly and in public interest when terminating tenancies, and the grounds for eviction must be substantiated; mere termination does not automatically render an occupant unautho....
Mere payment of damages does not create a right in favour of a person who may otherwise be illegally occupying public premises.
Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited to reviewing the legality of process rather than re-evaluating facts. Eviction upheld for breaches of lease conditions.
A decision is vitiated by irrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it is in defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly have taken the decision, having regard t....
The assessment of damages for unauthorized property use persists despite prior communications, reaffirmed by policy provisions, with petitioners failing to establish rights for commercial utilization....
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
