Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, JJ.
Kanoi Tea Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Major Port Authority Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port Kolkata And Ors. – Respondents
APOT No.171 Of 2023, IA No.GA/1 Of 2023, APOT No.172 Of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2023
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - Unauthorized Occupation - Interpretation of Relevant Provisions - Applicability of Transfer of Property Act and Rent Control Act - Principles of Natural Justice - Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant Company, a lessee of a public premises, challenged the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer (EO) under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (1971 Act). The Appellant Company claimed that it was granted a monthly tenancy after the expiry of the lease and that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and Rent Control Act applied to its occupation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and Rent Control Act were not applicable to the public premises in question. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Ors. v. Punjab National Banks & Ors. and Delhi Development Authority vs. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd., which held that the 1971 Act overrides the provisions of the Rent Control Act and the Transfer of Property Act in respect of public premises.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and Rent Control Act apply to the eviction of an authorized occupant of a public premises? 2. Whether the Appellant Company was an unauthorized occupant of the public premises in question? 3. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the eviction proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and Rent Control Act do not apply to public premises covered by the 1971 Act. 2. The Appellant Company, after the expiry of the lease, became an unauthorized occupant of the public premises in terms of Section 2(g) of the 1971 Act. 3. There was no violation of the principles of natural justice in the eviction proceedings as the Appellant Company was given several opportunities to defend itself.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the Appellant Company were dismissed, and the judgment and order passed by the Learned Single Judge were affirmed.
JUDGMENT :
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) :
1. These intra court appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge on May 16, 2023 in WPO No. 728 of 2006 with WPO No. 506 of 2006.
2. Common questions of law and fact are involved in these appeals for which the same were heard analogously and are decided by this order.
3. The Estate Officer of the Kolkata Port Trust which has since been renamed as the Major Port Authority, Shyama Prosad Mookherjee Port Kolkata passed an order dated December 5, 2005 in Proceeding No. 398 of 2001 directing the Appellant Company to pay arrear rent of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month which was challenged in WPO No. 506 of 2006.
4. In the said eviction proceeding, the Estate Officer (for short “EO”) passed an order dated May 16, 2006 which was challenged by the Appellant Company in WPO No. 728 of 2006.
5. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these appeals, in a nutshell, are as follows:
6. Land measuring about 13,378.03 sq.m. situated at Transport Department Road was allotted to the Appellant Company by the Kolkata Port Trust (for short “KPT”) on long term basis for a period of 10 years with effect from 1st June 1975. The said lease expired on and from 31.05.1985. The Appellant Company was a defaulter in payment of rent. The Appellant Company filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court challenging the KPT’s schedule of rent charges which was in force at the relevant point of time and prayed for a direction upon the Port Authority to renew the lease on the same terms and conditions as it was prior to 31.05.1985. The said writ petition which was registered as Matter No. 2115 of 1987 was dismissed by an Order dated 06.01.1999 giving liberty to the KPT to proceed for the eviction of the Appellant Company in the same manner as against an unauthorized trespasser. Being dissatisfied with the Order dated 06.01.1999, the Appellant Company preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench and obtained a conditional order of stay on 09.02.1999. The Hon’ble Division Bench directed the Appellant Company to deposit occupation charges in the manner as indicated in the said order. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, a Special Leave Petition being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC 5523/1999 was filed by the Appellant Company. However, the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.07.2000 at the instance of the Appellant Company. Thereafter, a show cause notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “1971 Act”) was issued to the Appellant Company on 02.02.2001 at the instance of KPT. An earlier order of eviction dated 08.03.2001 passed by the EO against the Appellant Company was however recalled by an order dated 07.05.2001 passed in WP No. 520 of 2001. In the said proceeding being no. 398 of 2001, the Appellant Company proposed to liquidate the KPT’s claim against arrears in monthly instalment of Rs. 1 lakh along with the current rent/ charges. The said proposal was however rejected by the EO by order dated 5.12.2005, which is the subject matter of challenge in WPO No. 506 of 2006. Thereafter, the EO passed an order of eviction against the Appellant Company on 15.05.2006 which has been assailed by the Appellant Company in WPO 728 of 2006.
7. Mr. Sarkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the appeal contended that the KPT by a letter dated August 18, 1986 offered to grant a monthly tenancy to the Appellant Company which was duly accepted by the Appellant Company vide letter dated January 12, 1987. He further contended that the purported notice dated September 9, 1999 cannot be said to be a valid notice in as much as the said notice did not determine the monthly tenancy in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. He further contended that the ex-parte order passed by the EO on May 15, 2
The pending proceeding before the Estate Officer was the appropriate forum for adjudication of disputed factual issues.
The Rent Act does not protect tenants of public premises once the Public Premises Act applies, affirming eviction rights under the latter.
The court established that the issuance of eviction notices under the Public Premises Act requires the Estate Officer to demonstrate prima facie satisfaction based on adequate material, and that publ....
PP Act prevails over state rent acts for evicting unauthorized occupants from public premises, including pre-existing tenancies post-acquisition; unauthorized assignment, decades-long rent default, a....
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
