High Court Of Calcutta
V. N. KHARE,. , S. K. MUKHERJEE
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
HARMONY HOUSE - Respondent
Appeal 158 Of 1995
Decided On : 03/01/1996
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - SECTION 4 - WRIT JURISDICTION - MAINTAINABILITY - ESTATE OFFICER'S AUTHORITY TO ISSUE NOTICE - MEMORANDA ISSUED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - APPLICABILITY - FACTUAL DISPUTES - ADJUDICATION BY ESTATE OFFICER.
Fact of the Case:
The Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) issued show-cause notices to tenants occupying its premises for default in rent payment and alteration of premises causing damage. The tenants challenged the notices in writ petitions, arguing that the notices were arbitrary and mala fide and that guidelines issued by the Central Government applied to their cases, rendering the eviction proceedings liable to be withdrawn.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Estate Officer had the authority to issue the show-cause notices based on the opinion that the tenants were unauthorized occupants liable for eviction. The Court found that the materials on record were sufficient to support the Estate Officer's opinion and that the tenants' contentions on merits, including the applicability of the Central Government's memoranda, should be adjudicated by the Estate Officer during the proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the Estate Officer's issuance of show-cause notices was arbitrary and mala fide. 2. Whether the guidelines issued by the Central Government applied to the tenants' cases, rendering the eviction proceedings liable to be withdrawn. 3. Whether the factual disputes, including the applicability of the Central Government's memoranda, should be adjudicated by the Estate Officer or the writ court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the Estate Officer's opinion that the tenants were unauthorized occupants liable for eviction was not perverse, mala fide, or arbitrary based on the materials on record. 2. The Court found that the applicability of the Central Government's memoranda was a matter to be determined by the Estate Officer during the proceedings, as it involved consideration of the tenants' contentions and evidence. 3. The Court held that the factual disputes, including the applicability of the Central Government's memoranda, should be adjudicated by the Estate Officer, who was the statutory adjudicating authority vested with jurisdiction to resolve such disputes.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the trial court's order, and permitted the Estate Officer to proceed with the eviction proceedings according to law and on merit. The Court held that all contentions raised before the Estate Officer, including the applicability of the Central Government's memoranda, would remain open for adjudication based on the materials and evidence adduced by the parties.
( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the order of a learned Single Judge in a proceeding, at the instance of the respondents to the present appeal, inter alia, challenging a show cause notice issued by the Estate Officer of the appellants with regard to the premises occupied as tenants by the writ petitioners in the two cases.
( 2 ) NOTICES were issued for ejectment of the respondents on two grounds, namely, (1) ground of default and (2) alteration of the premises in occupation of the tenant and thus causing damage to it. It may be noticed, at this stage, that the first ground is common in both the cases whereas the second ground was mentioned only in the second matter where-in the tenant was Govordhan Nopany and another.
( 3 ) AS stated above, challenging the said notices, the writ applications were moved. The learned Trial Judge, by the impugned order, inter alia, held that the guidelines, purported to have been issued by the Central Government, on which reliance was placed by the writ petitioners, did have application to the cases in question and on the basis thereof the eviction proceedings initiated against the writ petitioners were liable to be withdrawn. The learned Trial Judge, on the basis of such view his, directed the present appellants not to proceed any further in the pending cases against the respondents.
( 4 ) VARIOUS questions of law have been raised before us, on behalf of the contesting parties, including the contentions on merits about the grounds of eviction, which were to be under adjudication before the Estate Officer. We were also addressed on the point that, in spite of limited powers of the writ Court, in view of the admitted factual position, the notices were rightly declared to be unenforceable as otherwise to allow the Estate Officer to proceed on the basis of such notices would be to allow a mala fide and/or arbitrary or colourable proceeding to continue.
( 5 ) THE appellants have contended, mainly, that all the questions, both of fact and law, canvassed before the learned Trial Judge, can well be raised for adjudication before the Estate Officer, in whom the Legislative Authority has vested the required jurisdiction and which, because of such vesting, can incontrovertibly be said to be an efficacious alternative forum. Secondly, it has further been argued that the memoranda in question, relied upon by the writ petitioners/respondents, being, at best administrative instructions, cannot legally nullify any statutory provision, even assuming such memoranda to have application.
( 6 ) ON behalf of the respondents, it has been emphasized that it can be presumed that the Estate Officer, while acting in terms of section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, had opportunity to look into all the relevant documents, including the replies given on behalf of the respondents, categorically denying the allegations of default in the payment of rent and if such documents had been taken into consideration there would not have been any occasion even for initiating such a proceeding. Secondly, it was argued, regarding the ground of alteration of the premises causing damage to the same, that the nature of alteration was such that even a man of reason would not have taken the same to be capable of causing any damage to the premises and attracting the ground of eviction. In the background of above, lastly, it has been contended on their behalf that the action of the Estate officer in ex-facie, arbitrary.
( 7 ) RELIANCE had been placed on behalf of both the sides an the decision in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Sahu Jain Services Ltd. and Another reported in AIR 1991 SC 855. For the view we propose to take we wish to deal with the maintainability of the proceeding initiated by the Estate officer first. Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 vests the Estate officer with the authority to issue a notice up
REFERRED TO : Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Sahu Jain Services Ltd. and Anr.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.