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

2013 Supreme(Cal) 706

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.
BASANT PRAN & CO.
VERSUS
R.C. WALIA & ANOTHER
C.O. No. 2170 of 2007
Decided On : 9th October, 2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Aninda Mitra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Samit Talukdar, Mr. Bhaskar Mukherjee, Ms. Debjani Ghosh, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. B.K. Ghosal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Somenath Bose, Mr. Priyabrata Mukherjee, Mr. Joydeep Sen, Mr. Shakeet Mohammed Akhter, Advocates

An Estate Officer must provide cogent and palpable reasons for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, Section 5(1).

Headnote:

PUBLIC PREMISES EVICTION - UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION - REASONS FOR EVICTION - ACT OF 1971, SECTION 5(1) - An Estate Officer must provide cogent and palpable reasons for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, Section 5(1). Merely stating that the premises were occupied without authority from a certain date is insufficient.

Fact of the Case:

A registered partnership firm challenged an order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, and upheld by the statutory appellate authority. The petitioner claimed that the tenancy was terminated in 1963, but rent was accepted thereafter, creating a new monthly tenancy, and that the eviction proceeding was barred by limitation. The petitioner also argued that the eviction was arbitrary and mala fide, as it was intended to hand over the premises to another party.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Estate Officer's order was invalid for failing to provide cogent and palpable reasons for eviction, as required by Section 5(1) of the Act. The court also held that the appellate authority erred in upholding the Estate Officer's order without considering the statutory requirements for providing reasons.

Issues: 1. Whether the Estate Officer's order was valid despite the lack of cogent and palpable reasons for eviction. 2. Whether the appellate authority erred in upholding the Estate Officer's order without considering the statutory requirements for providing reasons.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, requires the Estate Officer to record reasons for eviction in the order. 2. The reasons provided by the Estate Officer in the present case were nebulous and did not fit into the facts of the case, rendering the order invalid. 3. The appellate authority erred in not considering the statutory requirements for providing reasons and in upholding the Estate Officer's order without examining its validity.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order of the appellate authority and the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer. The matter was remanded for a de novo hearing by the present Estate Officer, with all points raised by the petitioner to be considered during the fresh adjudication.

JUDGMENT

BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.

1. The instant revisional application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by a registered partnership firm and the subject matter of challenge is a judgment and an order dated 24th May, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in a statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 21st April, 1999 passed by R.C. Walia, Estate Officer, Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, Government of India, under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act of 1971”).

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since 1948, the petitioner was a tenant of room no.71 at premises nos.9, 10, 11 and 12, Old Court House Street, Kolkata – 700001, which belonged to F & C Osler (India) Limited and which is now in liquidation. Room no. 71 is on the southern side of the premises nos.9, 10, 11 and 12, Old Court House Street, Kolkata – 700001. After F & C Osler (India) Limited went into liquidation and premises nos.9, 10, 11 and 12, Old Court House Street, Kolkata – 700001 were put up for sale by the official liquidator, the said premises were acquired jointly by the President of India and Raneegunge Coal Association Limited, a private corporate body. It was further contended that while northern portion of premises nos.9, 10, 11 and 12, Old Court House Street, Kolkata – 700001 was purchased by the Raneegunge Coal Association Limited, the southern portion was purchased by the President of India. As the President of India had purchased the southern portion of the premises nos.9, 10, 11 and 12, Old Court House Street, Kolkata – 700001, the petitioner paid rent for room no.71 in favour of the President of India. By a letter dated 22nd July, 1963, the Deputy Director of Estates, Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Works, Housing and Rehabilation, Government of India, called upon the petitioner to quit and vacate the room by the expiry of 31st August, 1963, on the ground that the room was urgently required by the Government of India for its own use for allotment to Central Government offices after re-modeling the building. In the said letter, it was mentioned that in the event possession was not made over within 31st August, 1963, steps would be taken under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958.

3. According to the petitioner, the President of India entered into a registered Memorandum of Agreement on 1st June, 1965, which was registered on 24th June, 1965, with Raneegunge Coal Association Limited, wherein it was agreed, inter alia, that Raneegunge Coal Association Limited would convey and transfer in favour of the Government – the northern portion of the premises nos.9, 10, 11 and 12, Old Court House Street, Kolkata – 700001 and in turn, the Government would convey and transfer in favour of Raneegunge Coal Association Limited – the southern portion of premises nos.9, 10, 11 and 12, Old Court House Street, Kolkata – 700001, free from encumbrances and for the same, the Government would initiate necessary proceeding for obtaining vacant possession of the southern portion of premises nos.9, 10, 11 and 12, Old Court House Street, Kolkata – 700001.

4. After expiry of approximately 32 years from the date of the letter issued in July, 1963 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the room in its occupation, R.C. Walia, as the Estate Officer, again by a letter dated 18th May, 1995, again called upon the petitioner to forthwith vacate the public premises under its occupation. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even after the two letters, the petitioner all along paid rent in respect of the premises under its occupation and such rent was accepted. It is further contended that on 12th October, 1998, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent no.1 under section 4(1) and section 4 (2) (b) (ii) of the Ac





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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