Back
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
PRASENJIT MANDAL, J.
M/s. New Hindusthan Mercantile Co.
Versus
UCO Bank
C.O. No. 1671 of 2010
Decided On : 20-07-2012
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - SECTION 2(G) - SECTION 4 - SECTION 5 - Whether the petitioner is an 'unauthorised occupant' under Section 2(g) of the Act - Whether the notice issued under Section 4 of the Act is valid - Whether the petitioner is entitled to the protection of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was in possession of a room in a building owned by the respondent bank, which was a nationalised bank. The bank issued a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, alleging that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant. The petitioner challenged the notice, contending that he was a tenant under the previous owners and that the bank had not terminated his tenancy.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant and that the notice issued under Section 4 of the Act was valid. The court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, as the premises in question were excluded from the operation of the Act.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant under Section 2(g) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant under Section 2(g) of the Act because he was occupying the premises without any authority from the bank. The court also held that the notice issued under Section 4 of the Act was valid because the Estate Officer was satisfied that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application.
Prasenjit Mandal, J.
1. This application is at the instance of the appellant and is directed against the Order dated April 28, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 7th Bench, Calcutta in Misc. Appeal No.17 of 2004 arising out of the Order dated July 29, 2004 passed by the Estate Officer, UCO Bank in Case No.12 of 2002.
2. One, Duli Chand Nawar and Brothers were the owners of the premises No.2, India Exchange Place, Calcutta-700001 and the respondent-bank / opposite party herein purchased the said property. The appellant / petitioner herein was then in possession of the room no.4 situated on the first floor of the said premises. Thereafter, the Estate Officer issued a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 upon the appellant / petitioner herein and then the eviction proceeding was started against the appellant / petitioner herein under the said Act. The parties led evidence to the said eviction proceeding and thereafter, the Estate Officer passed orders of eviction against the appellant / petitioner herein. Being aggrieved by such orders of eviction, the appellant / petitioner preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.17 of 2004 and that misc. appeal was disposed of on contest affirming the orders of recovery of possession. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the appellant.
3. Now, the question is whether the impugned orders should be sustained.
4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the appellant is in possession of the room no.4 situated on the first floor of the premises no.2, India Exchange Place, Calcutta – 700001 and this is the premises in case. It is an admitted position that the respondent-bank / opposite party herein had purchased the premises no.2, India Exchange Place, Calcutta-700001 and the respondentbank being a nationalised bank is a corporation established by the Central Act. So the premises belonging to the nationalised banks shall be treated as public premises. Obviously, the premises in case is a public premises. According to the decision of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & anr. v. Punjab National Bank & ors. reported in AIR 1991 SC 855, premises belonging to a nationalised bank is also a public premises and therefore, so far as eviction is concerned, the provision of the said 1971 Act shall apply in the instant case.
5. The appellant / petitioner herein has contended that it was inducted as a monthly tenant under the original owners, namely, Duli Chand Nawar & Brothers about 50 years back and he had been paying rent to the said owners regularly and the owners granted rent receipts since 1950.
6. Mr. S.P. Roychowdhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that according to Section 1 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the premises in case has been excluded from the operation of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and so, the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 will be applicable and the object of such Act, is to provide for eviction of unauthorised occupants from the concerned premises and for certain individual matters. Therefore, it must be determined that before issuance of notice under Section 4 of the 1971 Act, the petitioner was an unauthorised occupier according to Section 2(g) of the Act.
7. Mr. Roychowdhury has also drawn my attention as to the definition of “unauthorised occupation” under Section 2(g) of the said Act and thus, he submits that the petitioner cannot come under the category of Section 2(g) since his occupation is not at all unauthorised. He has contended that the petitioner was a tenant under the previous owners and after purchase by the respondent-bank, the bank did not determine the tenancy and so, the tenancy continues. So, the petitioner cannot be described as an unauthorised occupier of the premises in case.
8. He has also contended
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
