Back
High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. SEN, S. N. SANYAL
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Appellant
Versus
MANTON COMPANY LTD. - Respondent
Civil Order 158 Of 1982
Decided On : 05/28/1982
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - SECTION 2 (2) (G) - UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION - INTERPRETATION - PRE-EXISTING TENANT - DETERMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO OCCUPY - VALIDITY OF NOTICE TO QUIT - ERROR IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
Union of India, the petitioner, purchased premises in 1963. The opposite party, Manton Company Ltd., was a tenant in occupation of a portion of the premises. The petitioner issued a notice to quit in 1964, determining the tenancy. The opposite party challenged the eviction proceedings, which were eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. In 1970, fresh eviction proceedings were initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (the Act). The opposite party again challenged the proceedings, arguing that they were not in unauthorized occupation as they were tenants before the premises became public property. The Chief Judge of the City Civil Court allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction order, holding that the opposite party could not be considered unauthorized occupants.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Chief Judge erred in his interpretation of the Act. The definition of 'unauthorized occupation' in Section 2(2)(g) of the Act includes persons who occupy public premises without any authority or continue to occupy after such authority has been determined. The court held that the opposite party's occupation became unauthorized when their tenancy was determined by the notice to quit, regardless of when they initially came into occupation. The court also found that the error in the show cause notice, which stated an incorrect date for the determination of the tenancy, was immaterial and did not affect the validity of the proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the opposite party was in unauthorized occupation of the public premises within the meaning of Section 2(2)(g) of the Act. 2. Whether the notice to quit issued by the petitioner was valid. 3. Whether the error in the show cause notice affected the validity of the eviction proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the opposite party was in unauthorized occupation of the public premises because their tenancy had been determined by the notice to quit and they had failed to vacate the premises. The court relied on the definition of 'unauthorized occupation' in Section 2(2)(g) of the Act, which includes persons who occupy public premises without any authority or continue to occupy after such authority has been determined. The court rejected the opposite party's argument that they could not be considered unauthorized occupants because they were tenants before the premises became public property. 2. The court held that the notice to quit issued by the petitioner was valid. The court found that the notice was served properly and that it gave the opposite party sufficient time to vacate the premises. The court also found that the error in the show cause notice, which stated an incorrect date for the determination of the tenancy, was immaterial and did not affect the validity of the notice to quit. 3. The court held that the error in the show cause notice did not affect the validity of the eviction proceedings. The court found that the error was immaterial and that the opposite party was not prejudiced by it.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Chief Judge and restored the order of the Estates Officer directing the eviction of the opposite party.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution at the instance of Union of India (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) and it arises out of a proceeding for eviction under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1971 ).
( 2 ) ON September 19, 1963, the petitioner purchased premises Nos. 13, 13/1, 13/2 and 13/3, Old Court House Street and Nos. 1. 2 and 2/1, Mangoe Lane, Calcutta. The opposite party herein M/s. Manton Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) who was a tenant in occupation of premises Nos. 1, 2 and 2/1', Mangoe Lane and portions of premises Nos. 13, 13/1, 13/2 and 13/3. Old Court House Street, since before such purchase by the petitioner became a tenant under the petitioner on attornment,
( 3 ) BY a notice to quit dated April 22, 1964, the petitioner determined the tenancy in favour of the opposite party with the expiry of the month of May 1964 and called upon the opposite party to quit, vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the premises in their occupation. The opposite party having failed to comply with the notice, the petitioner on June 10, 1964, started a proceeding for eviction under the provisions of Public Premises, (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958. The opposite party challenged the said proceeding in a writ petition which ultimately succeded when that Act of 1958 was struck down on the ground that its provisions were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was so held on the authority of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Northern India Caterer v. State of Punjab,. The judgment of this court.
( 4 ) IN the meantime, the Act of 1958 was amended by Act XXXIII of 1968 for the purpose of removing the offending elements in that Act. After such amendment a fresh proceeding for eviction was initiated against the opposite party on June 25, 1'970, by issue of a fresh show cause notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1958 so amended. The Act of 1958 having been repealed thereafter by the said Act of 1971 (that is, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971) the proceeding so initiated was continued as one initiated under the said Act of 1971 in view of the provision of S, 20 of the said Act of 1971'.
( 5 ) THE validity of such a proceeding was challenged again by the opposite party in a writ petition in this court which was registered as C. R, 4627 (W) of 1970 on several grounds including the ground that the Act is ultra vires the Constitution, that the proceeding as initiated is without jurisdiction and that the opposite party not being in unauthorised occupation no proceeding under the provisions of the said Act of 1971, could have been validly initiated against them. That Rule came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this court who by his order dated July 31, 1973, discharged the Rule by upholding the validity of the Act and the initiation of the proceeding thereunder relying primarily upon the later Supreme Court decision in the case of Hari Singh v. Military Estates Officer, Delhi,. The learned single Judge having held that the Estates Officer having jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding under Section 5 (1) of the said Act of 1971, left the question whether the opposite party is in unauthorised occupation or not to be decided by the Estates Officer in the proceeding so initiated. The opposite party preferred an appeal being F, M. A. 756 of 1973 under clause 15 of the Letters Patent but that appeal having failed, the decision of the learned single Judge was affirmed on Sept. 10, 1975. The judgment in the appeal.
( 6 ) AFTER all these proceedings in this court when the interim injunctions were vacated and the proceeding initiated under the provisions of the said Act of 1971 was remanded for disposal on its merits, the Estates Officer served due notices upon the opposite party. They, however, did not appear and on
AI
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
