Back
2011 (4) LW 464
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. RAJESWARAN
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Versus
S. Krishnachand Chordia & Another
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.728 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided on : 09-08-2011
Public Premises - Eviction - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Section 2(e), Section 5, Section 9 - The court discussed the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, particularly Section 5 and Section 9, and their applicability to the case. The court emphasized that not every order passed by the Estate Officer could be challenged under Section 9 and it is limited to the orders passed under Section 5(B), 5(C), and Section 7. The court held that the appeal filed by the tenant was not maintainable under Section 9 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought eviction of the first respondent, who was a tenant of a public premises, under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The first respondent challenged the proceedings before the Estate Officer and filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the City Civil Court. The first respondent then filed another appeal, which was the subject of the present case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal filed by the tenant was not maintainable under Section 9 of the Act, as not every order passed by the Estate Officer could be challenged under Section 9. The court also held that the first respondent was not entitled to enjoy the interim order passed by the Appellate Court, and the revision petition was maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the maintainability of the appeal filed by the tenant under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer to entertain the eviction petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 9 of the Act, which limited the scope of appeals that could be preferred, and the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to ensure that the lower court functions within its boundaries.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the Estate Officer was directed to dispose of all the interim applications and the main eviction petition within a month from the date of receipt of the court's order.
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in C.M.P.No.259 of 2008, in C.M.A.No.12 of 2008 dated 15.02.2008 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The petitioner herein is the first respondent in C.M.A.No.12 of 2008. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
The petitioner herein is the owner of the building known as National Insurance Building, at No.224, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-1, which is a public premises within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The first respondent was their tenant and was originally allotted an area of 3595 sq.ft. in the first floor of the said building for commercial activity on a monthly rent of Rs.14,545/-in November 1992, initially for a period of 5 years, renewable with two more periods of 5 yars each with 35% increase in rent on each renewal provided the lessee is desirous of renewing the lease. Subsequently, the first respondent herein surrendered a major area measuring an extent of 3212 sq.ft. with effect from 01.12.1996 and continued as a tenant in respect of 493 sq.ft. including a common area on a monthly rent of Rs.1,746/-from 01.12.1996.
3. Renewal of lease and revision of rent was due with effect from 01.11.1997. But, the first respondent/tenant was evasive in fixing the revised rent and continued to pay the old rent of Rs.1,746/-. In the meantime, the first respondent also inducted a third party namely Information Technology India Trust to operate in the petition premises, who made all the rental payments on behalf of the first respondent. This induction of a third party in the said premises was without authority and consent of the petitioner herein. Thus, he not only avoided the revision of rent for more than six years, but, also allowed a third party to operate in the said premises. Since there was no subsisting lease agreement, the tenancy in respect of the petition premises was on a month to month basis only. Therefore, the tenancy of the first respondent was terminated by a notice dated 06.08.2004 and the first respondent/tenant was called upon to vacate and deliver the vacant possession, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Even after the expiry of the notice period, the first respondent/tenant failed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession.
4. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, seeking to evict the first respondent. The second respondent issued a notice to the first respondent/tenant and directed him to file his objections. The first respondent without filing his objections to the eviction petition filed an Interim Application in I.A.No.1 of 2005 stating that one of the documents filed by the petitioner is a forged one and therefore, the original document must be produced (only photo copy was filed) and the same should be sent for expert opinion. On the objections filed by the petitioner herein in the counter, that the document referred to was a genuine one, the Estate Officer dismissed the above Interim Application on 18.08.2005 holding that the same would be taken up along with the main application. Against the said order dated 18.08.2005 passed by the second respondent/estate officer, the first respondent/tenant filed C.M.A.No.121 of 2005 which was dismissed on 21.07.2007. Against the order of dismissal, the first respondent/tenant preferred C.R.P.(NPD) No.3150 of 2007 before this Court. This Court by order dated 11.12.2007 directed the second respondent/estate officer to take up both the Interim Application Nos.1 and 2 of 2005 in petition No.30/04 along with the main petition and dispose of the same. Pursuant to this order, the estate officer took up the main petition for hearing along with the Interim Application Nos.1 and 2 of 2005. At that time, the first respondent/tenant filed another application in I.A. questioning the jur
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
