1971 Supreme(Cal) 138
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI MUKHERJI
D. MACROPOLO AND CO. - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Matter 779 Of 1968
Decided On : MAY 26, 1971
A void provision cannot be made valid by amendment.
Headnote:
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1958 - SECTION 7(2) - VOID - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 - AMENDMENT ACT, 1968 - SECTION 4 - INEFFECTIVE - SECTION 7(2) REMAINS VOID.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant in a building purchased by the Government of India, was served with a notice under Section 7(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, demanding damages for unauthorized occupation. The petitioner challenged the validity of the notice, arguing that Section 7(2) was void for violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 7(2) of the Act was void as it suffered from the same infirmity as Section 5, which had been struck down by the Supreme Court for violating Article 14. The court further held that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1968, which purported to amend Section 7(2), was ineffective as it could not make a void provision valid.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 7(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, was void for violating Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1968, could make Section 7(2) of the principal Act valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 7(2) of the Act was void as it gave wide discretion to the Estate Officer without laying down any guiding principle, thereby enabling the Government to discriminate between occupants of public premises arbitrarily. 2. The Amendment Act, 1968, could not make Section 7(2) valid as a void provision cannot be made valid by amendment.
Final Decision: The court held that Section 7(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, was void and could not be amended by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1968. The court directed the respondents not to give effect to the notice dated 2nd December 1968, mentioned in the petition and not to proceed further in pursuance thereof.
( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petition challenges the notice dated 2nd December, 1968, issued by the Estate Officer under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1953. The petitioner was for a long time a tenant in respect of a building known and numbered as premises Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Old Court House Street, Calcutta. The petitioner was paying rent at a particular rate. The Government of India purchased the said property on or about the 31st January, 1963. By a notice dated 22nd July, 1963, the Deputy Director of Estates and Under Secretary of the Government of India on behalf of the President of India terminated the tenancy in respect of the said premises on the expiry of the month of August, 1963. On the 21st September, 1963, the Estate Officer, Government of India, informed the petitioner that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the said premises and called upon the petitioner to show cause on or before the 10th October, 1963, as to why an order of eviction should not be made against the petitioner. The petitioner duly showed cause and after negotiations there was an agreement and the petitioner was allowed to remain in occupation till the end of October, 1965. The petitioner vacated the said premises on the 29th October, 1965. On the 27th September, 1965, the said Officer demanded damages from the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 2,626/- for the period between the 1st September, 1963 to the 30th June, 1965 and called upon the petitioner to show cause why an order requiring the petitioner to pay the said amount should not be made. By another notice dated the 5th October, 1966, the Estate Officer again demanded from the petitioner damages at the said rate for the period from the 1st July, 1965, to the 29th October, 1965. The petitioner duly showed cause. Then the Estate Officer made an order under Section 7 (2) of the Act. There was an appeal preferred and the appeal was heard by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta and by an order dated the 6th March, 1968, the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court. Calcutta, set aside the order of assessment of damages under Section 7 (2) of the Act and remanded the case back to the Estate Officer for passing a fresh order after taking evidence of both sides. By a notice dated 2nd December, 1968, the Estate Officer issued another notice under Section 7 (2) of the Act and the respondents considered that the damages amounting to Rs. 53. 925 were due for the period between the 1st September, 1963 to the 29th October, 1965 and the petitioner-Company was asked to show cause on or before the 18th December, 1968. It is the propriety of the last mentioned order that is under challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution.
( 2 ) IN the case of Standard Litera ture Co. Ltd v. Union of India, the Special Bench of this Court upheld the said Act. In the said case however the controversy was not raised in the present form. In the case of Rejendra Prasad Singh v. Union of India, the Special Bench of this Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Northern India Caterers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, held that Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, void Sections 5 and 7 of the Act provide inter alia as follows :"5. Eviction of unauthorised occupants. (1) If, after considering the cause, if any shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under Section 4 and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the estate officer may, on a date to be fixed for the purpose, make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated by a