2023 Supreme(Guj) 710

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
Ratandeep (Gandhidham) Owners Association & others – Appellants
Versus
Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Kandla & 1 Others – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 11148 of 2016 With Civil Application (For Joining Party) No. 1 of 2016
Decided on : 11-08-2023

A decision is vitiated by irrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it is in defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly have taken the decision, having regard to the materials on record.

Headnote:

PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - SECTION 4 - SECTION 5(A)(2) - SECTION 5 - SECTION 2(G) - SECTION 2(H) - LEASE DEED - UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION - PUBLIC PREMISES - EVICTION - NOTICE - JURISDICTION - WRIT PETITION - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - JUDICIAL REVIEW - PERVERSE DECISION - ILLEGALITY - IRRATIONALITY - ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD - EXTRAORDINARY POWER - MALAFIDE - JURISDICTIONAL ERROR - RE-APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE - CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT - INTERFERENCE BY THE COURT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Non-Trading Corporation, purchased a plot from one Shri Bhikhchand R. Shah for a period of 99 years by virtue of an allotment letter dated 08.02.1979. The petitioner started construction in accordance with the permission granted by the GDA. No objections came to be raised by the GDA in connection with the construction made by the petitioner herein. The respondent issued a Notice to the petitioner on 20.05.1995 and subsequent Notice dated 30.08.1996 addressed to the petitioner No.1 herein to remedy the breach, which was committed by the petitioner violating the terms and conditions as laid down in the original lease deed executed by the respondent No.1 in its para 6 (g): (i). The said breach was not remedied, which resulted in determination of lease by the respondent herein vide letter dated 05.03.1998. The subject matter thereafter, was referred to the authority appointed under the Public Premises Act who in turn ordered the premises to be vacated within 15 days of the date of publication of the order. The petitioner issued notice dated 03.11.1998 under sub-section (1) of clause (b) of sub-section 2 of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act, 1971’). After hearing the respective parties, the Estate Officer decided the same against the petitioner herein by order dated 1/3-7-2000 passed the orders of eviction on the ground of unauthorized occupation of the public premises. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Estate Officer dated 1/3-7-2000, the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No.30 of 2000 before the Court of 5th Additional District Judge, Gandhidham – Kachchh under Section 9 of the Act, 1971, which came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 30.05.2016. Being aggrieved by the order impugned dated 30.05.2016 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Gandhidham – Kachchh, confirming the order dated 1/3-7-2000 passed by the Estate Officer, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking following reliefs:

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the premises and was liable to be evicted. The Court also held that the respondent authorities had followed the due procedure under the Act, 1971 and had passed the orders impugned after considering the evidence and material available on record. The Court further held that the findings arrived at concurrently by the respondent authorities were neither perverse nor the said courts have over stepped their jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid position of law and the facts of the present case, in absence of any malafide, perversity in passing the impugned orders and the respondent authorities, having followed due process of law, the Court was not inclined to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the premises? 2. Whether the respondent authorities had followed the due procedure under the Act, 1971? 3. Whether the findings arrived at concurrently by the respondent authorities were perverse or the said courts have over stepped their jurisdiction?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the premises as it had changed the use of the land from residential purpose to residential-cum-commercial purpose in breach of the terms and conditions of the lease deed. 2. The respondent authorities had followed the due procedure under the Act, 1971 by issuing notices to the petitioner and providing an opportunity to remedy the breach. The respondent authorities had also considered the evidence and material available on record before passing the orders impugned. 3. The findings arrived at concurrently by the respondent authorities were neither perverse nor the said courts have over stepped their jurisdiction.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.