SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Cal) 296

High Court Of Calcutta
Amitava Lala
EASTERN TRADING CO. - Appellant
Versus
UCO BANK - Respondent
W. P.  321  Of  2003
Decided On : 06/19/2003

Advocates Appeared:
ASHOKE BASU, SABYASACHI CHOWDHURY, SHOVAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, SUMIT TALUKDAR, SUSHANTA KUMAR BASU, UDAYAN SEN

A reply to a show cause notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, can be treated as a written statement, and the parties are entitled to complete discovery and inspection of documents before filing an additional written statement.

Headnote:

PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - SECTION 4 - The Court held that a reply to a show cause notice under Section 4(1) of the Act can be treated as a written statement, and the parties are entitled to complete discovery and inspection of documents before filing an additional written statement.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners challenged the validity of notices issued under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, seeking their eviction from public premises on various grounds, including non-payment of rent, subletting, and causing nuisance.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the circular issued by the Government of India providing guidelines for the eviction of unauthorized occupants is not contrary to the Act and is intended to ensure that the Estate Officer acts in a proper quasi-judicial manner.

Issues: 1. Whether the circular issued by the Government of India providing guidelines for the eviction of unauthorized occupants is valid and enforceable. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to particulars of the grounds for eviction before filing a written statement in response to the show cause notice.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The circular issued by the Government of India is not supplanting or inconsistent with the Act, but rather provides administrative instructions to the Estate Officer to act in a proper quasi-judicial manner. 2. The petitioners are entitled to particulars of the grounds for eviction before filing a written statement, and a reply to the show cause notice can be treated as a written statement, followed by discovery and inspection of documents and an additional written statement if necessary.

Final Decision: The Court disposed of the writ petitions and connected applications, holding that the reply given by the petitioners to the show cause notice will be treated as a written statement, and the parties are entitled to complete discovery and inspection of documents before filing an additional written statement.

A. LALA, J.

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions were made for the common purpose. Therefore, the Court was pleased to direct to hear out all the writ petitions analogously. Several applications were also made in connection with the main writ petition. However, by making these writ petitions, petitioners wanted cancellation and/or withdrawal of a notice under seal and signature of the Estate Officer under sub section (1) and Clause (b) (iii) of sub section (2) of section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The notice in the nature of show cause is issued to give reply why the eviction should not be made to the respective petitioners. It is apparent that the respective petitioners were called upon in person or through a duly authorized representative capable to answer material questions connected with the matter along with the evidence which is intended to be produced in support of the cause shown at a personal hearing and a further notice was given that in case of failure the matter will be proceeded ex-parte. The grounds cited in the notice are as follows: 1. Reasonable and bonafide own use by the Bank; 2. Sub-letting, assigning whole or part of the occupied portion without written consent of the bank; 3. Non-payment of rent for the period of 6 months and more; 4. Construction and erection of fixtures, structures (temporary and permanent); 5. Damage to the occupied portion; 6. Creating nuisance/mischief in the occupied portion.

( 2 ) THE connected applications are being made for similar prayers. Hence, in hearing the main writ petition 1 do not find any justification to pass any order separately in connection with such applications. Therefore, result of the final disposal of the writ petition will be effective upon such connected applications.

( 3 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of section 4 of the Act says that if the Estate Officer is of opinion that the persons are in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the Estate Officer will issue, in the manner hereinafter provided, a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. The sub clause (b) (ii) of sub section (2) of such section says that they should appear before the Estate Officer on the dates specified in the notice along with the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown and also for personal hearing if such hearing is desired. That apart, sub section (2) (a) of such section says that the notice shall specify the grounds on which the order eviction is proposed to be made.

( 4 ) FROM the annexures to the writ petition it appears that both the parties have represented their respective causes upon submitting to the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer. The time was granted for filing written statement. The whole contention of the petitioners' counsel before the Estate Officer is to supply a copy of the application filed by the bank i. e. the owner of the premises in question. The authority held that the proceeding was initiated on the basis of the issuance of notice by the Estate Officer. Therefore, the present proceeding is required to be proceeded as per the provision of the Special Act as well as Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner is not entitled to have a copy of the bank's petition made before the Estate Officer unlike the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Estate Officer found the stand of the respondent bank justifiable in view of the sections under which the notice was given and granted time to the petitioner to submit their written reply and/or representation covering answer and causes of the material in questions referred therein along with the evidences. From the annexures in the writ petition I find that those are copies of challans of deposit of rents before the Rent Controller and receipts of payment of electricity charges in respect of the premises in question. Periods of challans and receipts are














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top