Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 721
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
BISWANATH SOMADDER, SANKAR ACHARYYA, JJ.
The Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sushila Lodha and Ors. - Respondent
CAN 4245 of 2017 in MAT 554 of 2017
Decided On : 20-07-2017
For the Appellant : Aniruddha Chatterjee, Kushal Chatterjee and Mohan Lall Banerjee
For the Respondents: Anindya Kumar Mitra, A. Mitra, Sr. Advs., Chayan Gupta, Biswajit Kumar and R. Baliyal
The duty of parties to appear before the Estate Officer and the notice served on the parties relieved the Estate Officer from issuing separate or successive notices each time proceedings were held.
Headnote:
Public Premises - Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Sec. 6(3) of LIC Act 1956, Sec. 2(g) of PP Act, Sec. 106 of TP Act - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 initiated by Life Insurance Corporation of India against R.S. Lodha and Sushila Lodha for eviction and realization of rent and damages for unauthorized occupation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the final order of the Estate Officer dated 21st February, 2017, was not rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 16th March, 2017. The writ petition, being WP 6453(W) of 2017, was also dismissed.
Issues: The primary issues were the determination of the court to take up the writ petition and whether there was any scope for interference by the court in respect of the final order of the Estate Officer dated 21st February, 2017, on violation of the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Estate Officer was not in violation of the principles of natural justice in rendering the final order, as the parties were duty bound to appear before the Estate Officer and were on notice.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 16th March, 2017. The writ petition, being WP 6453(W) of 2017, was also dismissed.
Biswanath Somadder, J.
1. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.
2. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 16th March, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 6453(W) of 2017 (Sushila Lodha & Anr. vs. Estate Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.). The appellants before us are Life Insurance Corporation of India and its Estate Officer exercising powers under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
3. From the records as well as the impugned judgment and order it appears that a proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was initiated by Life Insurance Corporation of India against R.S. Lodha and Sushila Lodha sometime in the year 2001. Copies of the order sheets produced during the course of hearing reflect that the first note/order recorded in the said proceedings dates as far back as on 3rd January, 2001, when the Estate Officer received two petitions from Life Insurance Corporation of India praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs:
"Eviction of the O.P. (R.S. Lodha and Mrs. Sushila Lodha) AND for realisation of rent and damages for unauthorised occupation."
4. Several orders were passed by the Estate Officer from time to time and one such order i.e., the order dated 30th May, 2002, was the subject-matter of challenge in the first writ petition filed by the opposite parties, namely, R.S. Lodha and Sushila Devi Lodha (Sushila Lodha) before this Court, being WP 1287 of 2002, where the following order was passed, way back on 14th August, 2002:-
"The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities are trying to evict them and accordingly passed an order on 30th May, 2002 without following the norms and the guidelines framed by the Central Government. The dispute as it appears in this matter is with regard to the rent in question and how far it can be enhanced by the said authority. The domain of the matter to decide the same lies on the Estate Officer.
After hearing the parties, I keep the matter open for a decision to be arrived at by the said Estate Officer after giving proper hearing to the petitioners.
If the petitioners have not yet filed any written statement, they shall file the same within three weeks from date. After filing of such written statement and after giving hearing to the petitioners, the Estate Officer shall pass a reasoned order in the matter after taking into consideration the law prevailing at that time. Until the matter is decided by the Estate Officer and the order is being intimated to the petitioners, no further step for eviction will be taken by the concerned authorities for a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
In view of the above, it would be proper for me to direct the said Estate Officer to decide the matter within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Since no affidavit has been filed, allegations made in the petition are not admitted."
5. No appeal was preferred against this order by any of the parties and, as such, it reached its finality. Consequently, further hearings were scheduled and/or held before the Estate Officer on the following dates:
"05/09/2002, 19/09/2002, 20/09/2002, 24/09/2002, 03/10/2002, 09/10/2002, 07/11/2002, 22/11/2002, 10/12/2002, 19/12/2002, 24/12/2002, 27/12/2002, 30/12/2002, 10/01/2003, 11/01/2003, 16/01/2003, 18/01/2003, 28/01/2003, 31/01/2003, 01/02/2003, 03/02/2003."
6. It is also noted that Sushila Lodha filed written statement on 5th September, 2002, in an affidavit form. The Estate Officer, taking note of the time frame fixed by the High Court, proceeded to pass an order on 4th February, 2003, relevant portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow:
"'Revision of rent' is an administrative function to be done on business principle as per Sec. 6(3) of LIC Act 1956. AIR 1994 supp. 694 decided on 28.09.93.
'An o
