2025 Supreme(MP) 937

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjeev Sachdeva, CJ and Vinay Saraf, J.
Jyotinder Singh Saluja v. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd.
Miscellaneous Petitions No. 5575 of 2024 and 6415 of 2024 (Jabalpur): against the orders dated 18.9.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Appeals No. 66 of 2023 and 67 of 2023; Decided on 19.12.2025

Headnote:

¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 227 & ljdkjh LFkku ¼vçkf/k—r vfèkHkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1971 & /kkjk 9 & çdh.kZ ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; gksuk & vihy çkf/kdkjh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 9 ds v/khu ikfjr vkns'k ds fo:) vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu çdh.kZ ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; gS & bl U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k ds vkSfpR; ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2017½ 8 ,llhlh 611] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 5379 lu~ 2014 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk ¼flfoy½ Øekad 3417 lu~ 2015 ¼fnYyh½ çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 17½
¼2½ ljdkjh LFkku ¼vçkf/k—r vf/kHkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1971 & /kkjk 2¼N½ rFkk 5¼1½ iV~Vk LFkku ls csn[kyh & ckj&ckj lwpuki= fn, tkus ds i'pkr~ Hkh Hkwfe dh vuqKfIr uoh—r ugha dh xbZ & dCtk vçkf/k—r vfèkHkksx esa ifjofrZr gks x;k & ;|fi çR;FkhZ us 2018 rd vuqKfIr 'kqYd Lohdkj fd;k rFkkfi mls vuqKfIr dk foof{kr uohdj.k ugha ekuk tk ldrk & ;g n'kkZus ds fy, dqN ugha fd csn[kyh dk vkns'k ikfjr djrs le; laink vf/kdkjh }kjk çfØ;k dk Hkax vFkok uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk vfrØ.k fd;k x;kA blh çdkj] laink vf/kdkjh us ç/kku ftyk U;k;k/kh'k ds le{k vihy dh [kkfjth ds i'pkr~ csn[kyh okjaV tkjh dj dksbZ =qfV ugha dh & csn[kyh dk vkns'k oSèk] U;k;iw.kZ vkSj mfprA ¼2005½ 5 ,llhlh 543 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 20] 21] 26 ls 30] 41&, ,oa 41&ch½
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 11 & ljdkjh LFkku ¼vçkf/kÑr vf/kHkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1971 & /kkjk 7 & iwoZ U;k; & ;kph us dCtk okjaV vkSj olwyh okjaV tkjh fd, tkus ij fjV ;kfpdk esa vk{ksi fd;k Fkk] tks bl çdh.kZ ;kfpdk esa vk{ksfir ugha & bl çdh.kZ ;kfpdk ds yacu ds vk/kkj ij og fjV ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; ugha gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt dj nh xbZ & ml ;kfpdk esa fook|d xq.kkxq.k ij fofuf'pr ugha gqvk & iwoZ U;k; dk fl)kar ykxw ugha gksrkA ¼iSjk 31½
¼4½ ljdkjh LFkku ¼vçkf/k—r vf/kHkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1971 & /kkjk 7 rFkk 6 & fdjk, ds cdk;k dk lank; & ;kph r; vuqKfIr 'kqYd lanÙk djus ds nkf;Rok/khu Fkk & çR;FkhZ }kjk LFkku eqgjcan fd, tkus rd r; nj ls cdk;k lanÙk djus ds fy, nk;h gS & ;kph ekfld vuqKfIr 'kqYd esa çR;sd o"kZ 5 Áfr'kr dh o`f) tksM+dj vuqKfIr 'kqYd ds cdk;k ds lank; ds fy, nk;h gksxk & cdk;k pqdkus esa vlQy jgus dh n'kk esa ;kph fo"k;karxZr LFkku ls eky&vlckc gVkus dk gdnkj ugha gksxk & çR;FkhZ dks /kkjk 6 ds vuqlkj ;kph }kjk NksM+h xbZ laifÙk uhyke dj jde olwyus dk çkf/kdkj gksxkA ¼iSjk 35] 41&lh ,oa 41&Mh½
¼5½ ch,pbZ,y nqdku uhfr] 2014 & [kaM 2-4] 3-1 rFkk 4-3 & uqdlkuh dk lank; & fo|eku vuqKfIr dks vkn'kZ vuqKfIr djkj cukus ds fy, i{kdkjksa ds e/; dksbZ nLrkost fu"ikfnr ugha & i{kdkjksa us nqdku uhfr ds vuqlkj dHkh dksbZ lafonk ugha dh & vr% ;kph nqdku uhfr ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj vuqKfIr 'kqYd lanÙk djus ds fy, nk;h ugha Fkk & nqdku uhfr ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj uqdlkuh ds lank; dk vkns'k vikLrA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 11190 lu~ 2016 fu.khZr fnukad 25-10-2017 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 38 ,oa 41&lh½
¼6½ ljdkjh LFkku ¼vçkf/k—r vf/kHkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1971 & /kkjk 7 & ch,pbZ,y nqdku uhfr] 2014 & uqdlkuh dk lank; & ;fn iV~Vk@vuqKfIr vof/k ds volku ds i'pkr~ vf/kHkksxh }kjk LFkku dk [kkyh dCtk ugha lkSais tkus ds dkj.k LFkku dk Lokeh uqdlkuh dk nkok djrk gS rks Lokeh rdZiw.kZ lk{; ls uqdlkuh lkfcr djus ds nkf;Rok/khu gS & laink vf/kdkjh ds le{k ;g lkfcr djus ds fy, dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha fd çR;FkhZ vuqKfIr 'kqYd ds vfrfjä] uqdlkuh dh fdlh jde dk gdnkj gS] vkSj ;fn gS rks fdl nj ij & vklikl dh laifÙk ds fy, çpfyr mi;ksx çHkkj ds laca/k esa nkosnkj }kjk lk{; is'k fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS & ;g LFkkfir djus ds fy, dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd iM+ksl esa blh çdkj fLFkr laifÙk dk HkkVd ewY; i{kdkjksa }kjk r; dh xbZ jde ls vf/kd gS & ;g Hkh vfHkys[k ij ugha yk;k x;k fd çR;FkhZ ds vfèkHkksfx;ksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh nqdku uhfr ds vuqlkj fdjk;k lanÙk dj jgk gS & rdZiw.kZ lk{; ds vHkko esa] dsoy nqdku uhfr ds mica/k ds vk/kkj ij] mi;ksx çHkkj ds vykok uqdlkuh çnku dj laink vf/kdkjh us xyrh dh & HkkVd ewY; fuèkkZfjr djus ds fy, dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha & tc rd uqdlkuh voyacuh; lk{; ls lkfcr ugha dh tkrh] uqdlkuh ds 'kh"kZ esa dksbZ jde vf/kfu.khZr ugha dh tk ldrh & :i;s 3]718 çfrekl dh vafre ckj r; dh xbZ vuqKfIr 'kqYd dh nj ds laca/k esa uqdlkuh :i;s 3]84]820@& frekl dh nj ls vf/kfu.khZr dh xà & uqdlkuh dh nj fugk;r gh vfr'k; & laink vf/kdkjh dks 100 xquk ls vf/kd uqdlkuh çnku djus dk çkf/kdkj ugha Fkk & uqdlkuh ds lank; dk vkns'k vikLrA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 11190 lu~ 2016 fu.khZr fnukad 25-10-2017 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 39 ,oa 40½

(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 227 -- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 -- S. 9 -- maintainability of miscellaneous petition -- miscellaneous petition under Art. 227 is maintainable against order passed by appellate authority u/s. 9 of Act -- correctness of order can be considered by this Court. (2017) 8 SCC 611, Writ Petition No. 5379 of 2014 (MP) and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3417 of 2015 (Del.) distinguished. [Para 17]

(2) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 -- Ss. 2(g) and 5(1) -- eviction from lease premises -- licence of land not renewed even after repeated notices -- possession turned into unauthorised occupation -- though respondent accepted licence fee till 2018 but the same could not be treated as implied renewal of licence -- nothing to show that there was any breach of procedure or violation of principles of natural justice by Estate Officer while passing order of eviction -- similarly, Estate Officer has not committed any error in issuing evictin warrant after dismissal of appeal before Principal District Judge -- order of eviction legal, just and proper. (2005) 5 SCC 543 followed. [Paras 20, 21, 26 to 30, 41(a) & 41(b)]

(3) Civil P.C. 1908 -- S. 11 -- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 -- S. 7 -- res judicata -- petitioner had challenged order of issuance of possession warrant and recovery warrant in a writ petition, which are not under challenge in instant miscellaneous petition -- on ground of pendency of this miscellaneous petition, that writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable -- issue was not finally decided on merits in that petition -- principle of res judicata not applicable. [Para 31]

(4) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 -- Ss. 7 and 6 -- payment of arrears of rent -- petitioner was under obligation to pay licence fee as agreed -- is liable to pay arrearsas per agreed rate till sealing of premises by respondent -- petitioner shall be liable for payment of arrears of licence fee adding increment of 5% in monthly license fee every year -- in case petitioner fails to make payment of arrears, he will not be entitled to remove belongings from subject premises -- respondent will have authority to recover amount in accordance with S. 6 by auctioning property left by petitioner. [Paras 35, 41(c) & 41(d)]

(5) BHEL Shop Policy, 2014 -- Cls. 2.4, 3.1 and 4.3 -- payment of damages -- no document was executed between parties to bring existing licence to model license agreement -- parties never entered into any contract in accordance with Shop Policy -- therefore, petitioner was not liable to pay licence fee as per provisions of Shop Policy -- order for payment of damages as per provisions of Shop Policy set aside.Writ Petition No. 11190 of 2016 decided on 25.10.2017 referred to. [Paras 38 & 41(c)]

(6) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 -- S. 7 -- BHEL Shop Policy, 2014 -- payment of damages -- if owner of premises claims damages on account of failure of occupant to handover vacant possession of premises after expiry of lease/licence period, owner is under obligation to prove damages by cogent evidence -- no evidence produced before Estate Officer to prove that in addition to licence fee, respondent is entitled for any amount of damages and, if so, on what rate -- claimant is required to produce evidence in respect to prevailing usage charges for surrounding properties -- no document was produced to establish that similarly situated property in vicinity has rental value more than amount agreed by parties -- also not brought on record that any of the occupants of respondent is paying rent as per Shop Policy -- in absence of cogent evidence, only on basis of provision of Shop Policy, Estate Officer erred in granting damages in addition to usage charges -- no evidence produced to assess market rental value -- until and unless damages are proved by reliable evidence, no amount can be awarded under head of damages -- against last agreed rate of licence fee of Rs. 3,718/- per month, damages were awarded @ Rs. 3,84,820/- per month -- rate of damages highly exorbitant -- Estate Officer had no authority to grant damages more than 100 times -- order for payment of damages set aside. Writ Petition No. 11190 of 2016 decided on 25.10.2017 referred to. [Paras 39 & 40]