Point of Law: Public Premises - Eviction - Section 15 of the Public Premises Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction.

JUDGMENT :

K. BABU, J.

1. The Punjab National Bank, the defendant in O.S. No. 639/2008 on the file of the I-Additional Munsiff’s Court, Thrissur, is the appellant. The plaintiff is the respondent.

2. Material facts relevant for the adjudication of this appeal are as follows:

2.1 The plaint schedule property is a building originally owned by the Nedungadi Bank Ltd. which was leased out to the plaintiff. The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. amalgamated and merged with the defendant Bank. On 21.01.2008, the defendant Bank issued a notice to the plaintiff asking him to vacate the premises. The plaintiff responded to the notice stating that he shall not be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The plaintiff instituted the suit to restrain the defendant from evicting him from the plaint schedule property except in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Control Act.

2.2 The defendant resisted the claim contending that by virtue of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Public Premises Act’) the plaintiff has no unfettered right to occupy the premises. The defendant Bank is a nationalized bank and is controlled by the Central Government. The premises that belong to the nationalised banks are public premises under the Public Premises Act. Section 15 of the Public Premises Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a dispute relating to the matter coming within the purview of the provisions of the Act. The provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are not applicable to the plaint schedule building. The plaintiff has been paying rent to the defendant.

3. The parties went to trial. During the trial, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW-1 was examined and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the defendant. Ext.X1 was marked as third party Exhibit.

4. The Trial Court held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the bar contained in Section 15 of the Public Premises Act.

5. The plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in A.S. No. 25/2018 before the First Appellate Court, the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur. The First Appellate Court held that the plaintiff is not in unauthorised occupation of the building and therefore, the provisions of the Public Premises Act cannot be pressed into service. The Court, therefore, set aside the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court and the defendant was restrained by way of a permanent prohibitory injunction from evicting the plaintiff from the plaint schedule building otherwise than by due process of law.

6. The defendant Bank is in appeal invoking Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this Court.

7. On 20.12.2019, this Court admitted the appeal and issued notice on the following substantial question of law:

“Is the finding of the lower appellate court that the respondent was accepted as tenant by acceptance of rent even subsequent to the notice of termination of lease, sustainable in law?”

8. After hearing both sides, this Court formulated the following additional substantial question of law:

“Is not the plaintiff in unauthorised occupation of the plaint schedule building as defined in Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act even when the defendant Bank accepted rent from the plaintiff?”

9. Heard Shri C. Ajith Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant and Shri K.A. Sreejith, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.

10. The following facts are not in dispute:

(a) The plaint schedule building was leased out to the plaintiff by the Nedungadi Bank, which later amalgamated and merged with the defendant Bank.

(b) On 22.01.2008, the plaintiff was served with Ext.A1 notice terminating tenancy at the expiry of three months after the receipt of the notice.

(c) Even after the termination of the tenancy, the defendant Bank continued to rec