Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
A. Veerasamy – Petitioner
Versus
Brigadier, Stationer Commander/Estate Officer, Station Headquarters, Chennai – Respondent
C.R.P.(PD)Nos. 2888 to 2892 of 2014 & M.P. Nos. 1 to 1 of 2014
Decided On : 11-04-2018
For the Petitioner:ARL. Sundaresan, B.S. Gnanadesikan, Senior Counsels, C. Muralikrishnan, M/s. BSG Firm, Advocates.
For the Respondent:P.G. Santhosh Kumar, Advocate.
Headnote:
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – Sections 4, 7, 8 – License – Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the common judgment passed in CMA on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in confirming the order passed by the respondent herein in proceedings – Petitioners are occupants of the shops belonging to the respondent based on the license. – The lease expired on 30.06.2009. – Subsequently, the said license was not extended. – The respondent issued notice to the petitioners as to why they should not be evicted from the shops as they are unauthorised occupants. – The respondent also called upon the petitioners to vacate the said premises under their occupation as the same is unsafe for human inhabitation and is also required for the Troops of the Indian Army. – On three occasions, the petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the proceedings of the respondent before this Court. – This Court directed the petitioners to file affidavit and directed the respondent to consider the same and pass orders. In compliance of the said order of this Court, the petitioners filed proof affidavit. – The respondent, considering the contention of the petitioners and reasons for evicting them, held that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants and ordered eviction. – Against the said order, the petitioners filed CMA Nos.106 to 110 of 2012. – The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, considering the contentions of the petitioners and materials on record, dismissed all the appeals confirming the order of the Estate Officer. – Held, Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are willing to pay the admitted arrears. – It is open to the petitioners to pay the arrears and owners are directed to receive the same, without any prejudice to their right to take proceedings for eviction. – The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that in the present case, Garrison Officer demanded rent and other charges payable by the petitioners. – As per such demand, petitioners paid the rent. – The Estate Officer did not demand any rent or damages for use and occupation by the petitioners. – The Garrison Officer has power to demand rent only from authorised occupant. – The Estate Officer has power to demand rent or damages from unauthorised occupants as per Section 7 of the Act. – Senior Counsel for the petitioners have contended that only the Estate Officer has power to call upon the petitioners to pay the amount or fix the damages and call upon the petitioners to pay the said sum together with interest as per Section 7 of the Act. – In view of such stand taken by the petitioners, it is open to the Estate Officer to exercise his power under Section 7 of the Act and call upon the petitioners to pay the amounts due to the owner. – Civil Revision Petitions Allowed
1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the common judgment passed in CMA Nos.106 to 110 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 21.07.2014 in confirming the order passed by the respondent herein in proceedings No.4022/XXV/[Part], Veerasamy/1/Q3 Land, No.4022/Bunk XXXIII/Vani/5/Q3 Land, No.4022/XXV(King's BK) Kannan/2/Q3 Land, No.4022/Bunk XXXIII-5/Hanifa/6/Q3 Land and No.4022/XXV/King's Bk/sivagnanam/3/Q3 Land, all dated 05.11.2012.
2. The respondent and issues involved in all the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.
3. The petitioners are occupants of the shops belonging to the respondent based on the license. The lease expired on 30.06.2009. Subsequently, the said license was not extended. The respondent issued notice to the petitioners as to why they should not be evicted from the shops as they are unauthorised occupants. The respondent also called upon the petitioners to vacate the said premises under their occupation as the same is unsafe for human inhabitation and is also required for the Troops of the Indian Army. On three occasions, the petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the proceedings of the respondent before this Court. This Court directed the petitioners to file affidavit and directed the respondent to consider the same and pass orders. In compliance of the said order of this Court, the petitioners filed proof affidavit. The respondent, considering the contention of the petitioners and reasons for evicting them, held that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants and ordered eviction. Against the said order, the petitioners filed CMA Nos.106 to 110 of 2012. The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, considering the contentions of the petitioners and materials on record, dismissed all the appeals confirming the order of the Estate Officer.
4. Against the said order of dismissal dated 21.07.2014 made in CMA Nos.106 to 110 of 2012, the petitions have filed the present Civil Revision Petitions.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in CRP (PD) Nos.2888 to 2891 of 2014 and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in CRP (PD) No.2892 of 2014 contended that even after the expiry of the license, the petitioners were paying the rent, electricity and water charges to the respondent. The respondent, having received the same, cannot term the petitioners as unauthorised occupants. The learned Judge failed to see that the petitioners have filed proof affidavit and they were not cross examined. In view of the same, it must be presumed that the respondent accepted the contention of the petitioners that they are not unauthorised occupants and license is deemed to have been extended. The learned Appellate Judge erred in holding that the judgment reported in AIR 1995 Calcutta 126 [Malayakumar Banerjee v. Union of India and others] is applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, only the judgment reported in AIR 2008 SCC 876(1) [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia and another] is applicable to the facts of the present case as the respondent has accepted the rent and other charges paid by the petitioners. The learned Appellate Judge failed to see that even after evicting one of the tenants, the respondent has not used the petition premises and the same is kept as vacant. The respondent received the rent and other charges and therefore as per Section 2(2) (f) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, it amounts to payment of rent for authorised occupation.
5(a) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the Civil Revision Petitions contended that the Estate Officer has issued notice under Section 4 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and called upon the petitioners to vacate from the petition premises on the ground that the same is unsafe for human inhab
