Valid termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the TP Act renders subsequent occupation unauthorized, allowing for eviction and damages recovery.

JUDGMENT :

GAURI GODSE, J.

1. This civil revision application is filed under Section 115 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (‘CPC’) to challenge the order passed by the learned City Civil Court in the appeal preferred by the respondent to challenge the order of eviction and damages passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (‘said Act’).

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during the pendency of this civil revision application, the possession of the subject premises was handed over to the applicant. Accordingly, in the present civil revision application, the only issue to be decided is the applicant’s claim for damages arising from the respondent's unauthorised occupation.

BASIC FACTS:

3. The proceedings are initiated in respect of the premises, which consist of a cabin on the mezzanine floor of a building known as the Oriental House, owned by the applicant. The respondent occupied the subject premises in the said building as a monthly tenant of the applicant.

4. The applicant issued a notice dated 13^th March 2001 terminating the lease in favour of the respondent, on the grounds of default in payment of rent and other charges, and breach of the terms and conditions by changing the user of the premises from an office to a godown. The respondent was therefore called upon to vacate the premises within one month, failing which the respondent would be liable to pay damages for the unauthorised occupation. The respondent was also informed about the payment of the arrears at 24% interest and thus called upon the respondent to pay the arrears within two weeks. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application for eviction and damages before the Estate Officer. The show cause notice for eviction was issued by the estate officer on 6^th September 2001 on the ground that the lease was terminated and the respondent was in unauthorized occupation since 1^st May 2001. A notice dated 6^th September 2001 was also issued under Section 7 (3) of the said Act for payment of damages.

5. The estate officer held that the respondent was in unauthorised occupation and the tenancy was terminated by a valid notice. The applicant was held entitled to an order of eviction and to recover arrears of rent and damages at the rate of Rs. 6,900/- per month from 1^st May 2001 till the date of actual delivery of the possession, along with simple interest at 9% per annum. However, in an appeal preferred by the respondent, the first appellate court held that the lease was valid and subsisting upto 2003, and there was no valid termination of tenancy. It was held that the respondent paid the arrears of Rs. 32943/- by cheque along with a letter dated 28^th March 2001; hence, in view of receipt of the arrears as demanded, the forfeiture under Section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act (“the TP Act”) stood waived under Section 112 of the TP Act. It was held that although the respondent had shifted to a new office premises, the subject premises was not fully closed; hence, there was no change in user. The first appellate court allowed the respondent's appeal and reversed the estate officer’s order.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a Section 7 notice was issued in the prescribed Form-F, claiming damages arising from the termination notice dated 13^th March 2001, as the respondent's occupation was unauthorised. Once the requirement of termination of tenancy as contemplated under Section 106 of the TP Act is satisfied, the