Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
MOHAMMAD SAFI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Rule 2219 Of 1952
Decided On : JUNE 26, 1953
GOVERNMENT PREMISES (EVICTION) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 3(1) - SATISFACTION OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY - TRANSFER OF SHOPS WITHOUT PERMISSION - CESSATION OF BUSINESS - VALIDITY OF EVICTION NOTICE - APPEAL RIGHT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a ground tenant of two plots of land with shops in a workmen's line market within a government factory, wrote letters expressing a desire to transfer the shops to third parties but later revoked the request. The competent authority issued eviction notices to the petitioner, alleging that he had ceased to carry on business in the shops and had sold the structures to third parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had ceased to carry on business in the shops at some point before the eviction notices were served. The court also found that the competent authority was properly appointed and that the notices were validly issued.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had acted in contravention of the terms of his tenancy by ceasing to carry on business in the shops? 2. Whether the competent authority was properly appointed? 3. Whether the eviction notices were validly issued?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. One of the terms of the petitioner's tenancy was that he must carry on business in the shops. The court found that the petitioner had ceased to carry on business at some point before the eviction notices were served. Therefore, the petitioner had acted in contravention of the terms of his tenancy. 2. The definition of "competent authority" in the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950 includes any person authorized by the Central Government to perform the functions of the competent authority. The court found that the competent authority in this case was properly appointed. 3. The eviction notices were issued under Section 3(1) of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950. The court found that the competent authority was satisfied that the petitioner had acted in contravention of the terms of his tenancy. Therefore, the eviction notices were validly issued.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule and vacated the interim injunction. The court also declined to award costs.
( 1 ) THIS is an application to compel the respondents to withdraw an order of eviction passed upon the petitioner, in respect of two plots of land appertaining to shops Nos. 18 and 20 in the workmen's line market at Ichapore, situate within the boundaries of the Metal and Steel Factory at Ichapore. The facts are as follows:
( 2 ) THE petitioner took the ground tenancy of two pieces of lands on 1-12-1942 and 1-8-1943, situate in the workmen's line market at Ichapore, situate within the boundaries of the Government Metal and Steel Factory at Ichapore. On this lie erected Stalls which were numbered as shops Nos. 18 and 20. Therein he carried on a cloth business under the name and style of "nadia Cloth Store". During the communal disturbances in the locality about end of February 1950 the petitioner closed his shops. Upon the Factory authorities notifying in the newspapers that all shops must be reopened within a specified period, the petitioner reopened his shop early in June 1950. On 15-6-1950 two letters were written by the petitioner to the Estate Foreman, Metal and Steel Factory Ichapore, as follows:" (1) I beg to bring to your kind notice that I wish to transfer shop at No. 18 at Workmen line Bazar Ichapur to Sri Kedarnath Agarwala of Ichapore Bazar from the month of June 1950. Kindly arrange to transfer the name accordingly to Sri Kedar Nath Agarwalla who is bound to pay the rent of the ground on which the said shop stands accordingly to your assessment. Please note and do the needful. (2) I beg to bring to your kind notice that I wish to transfer my shop No. 20 at Workmen's line Bazar Ichapur to Sree Mewalal Shaw of Ichapur Bazar from the month of June 1950. Kindly arrange to transfer the name accordingly to Sree Mewalal Shaw who is to pay the rent of the ground on which the said shop stands according to your assessment. Please note and do the needful. "it appears that the Superintendent Metal and Steel Factory Ichapore got into communication with Kedar Nath Agarwal and Mewalal Shaw. On 31-6-1950, Kedar Nath Agarwal wrote to the Superintendent that he was a businessman residing at Ichapore Line Bazar and had purchased the shop for running the business and wanted to take a lease of the land upon paying a rent higher than the highest tender. On the same date Mewalal Shaw wrote a letter informing the Superintendent that he had purchased the shop from the petitioner for running the business and was continuing the business there for a long time. He also wanted a tenancy of shop No. 20 at a rent higher than the highest tender. It is not quite clear what they meant by the highest tender received. Probably the authorities had intimated to them that the lands will be let out upon the basis of fresh tenders and both these persons failed to make any offer in time and apprehended that fresh tenders had already been called and the highest tender accepted.
( 3 ) ON 29-7-1950, Kedarnath's pleader wrote to the Chief Secretary, Government of India and the Collector, 24 Parganas stating that the petitioner had sold his right title and interest in the land (upon which shop No. 18 was situate) to Kedarnath, together with the structures and had put him in possession, and threatening to file a suit for a declaration of his tenancy right and damages for dispossession. On 31-7-1950 Mewalal's pleader wrote a similar letter in respect of the plot of land upon which shop No. 20 was situated. It is by no means clear how they complained of dispossession.
( 4 ) ON 12-11-1950, Kedar Nath wrote a letter to the Superintendent that shop No. 18 was taken over by him to save the same being looted during the communal troubles upon condition that when the petitioner returned, the shop would be made over to him. He intimated that the shop had been made over again to the petitioner.
( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner he wrote a letter on 3-7-1950 to the Superintendent stating that he had changed his views due to abatement of the communal disturbanc
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
