Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 8027
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Madhav J. Jamdar, J
Praveen Kumar Passi – Appellant
Versus
Pradip Syamlal Das – Respondent
Writ Petition No.5912 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pankaj J. Dixit, Rajesh Dixit
For the Respondents: S. D. Rayrikar
Statutory authorities tasked with executing eviction orders possess implied ancillary powers to clear premises of attached property to facilitate full delivery of possession. Execution is not exhausted by partial turnover; authorities must ensure complete compliance by employing necessary procedural mechanisms for the disposal of unclaimed articles.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Sections 24, 43(5), 45 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 21 - Execution of decree - Competent Authority established under special statute - Ancillary and incidental powers to give effect to orders - Partial execution of eviction order - Unclaimed property in premises.
(B) Statutory interpretation mandates that where a statute confers jurisdiction to execute an order, it impliedly grants all incidental powers necessary to render that execution effective. A decree or order for possession is not considered fully executed while items belonging to a dispossessed party remain specifically sealed within the premises.
(C) For proceedings conducted by special authorities where procedural codes apply, the executing authority must follow established practices for the attachment and sale of unclaimed goods to ensure the delivery of complete and vacant possession.
Facts of the case:
The landlord initiated eviction proceedings against a licensee. An eviction order was passed, and part of the premises was vacated; however, articles belonging to the licensee remained in one room which was sealed, preventing the landlord from obtaining complete possession. An application for the sale of these items to facilitate full possession was dismissed by the relevant authority, citing a lack of explicit statutory jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The authority retains jurisdiction until the eviction order is completely satisfied. The body is empowered to exercise ancillary powers, including the sale of unclaimed goods, to ensure full delivery of the property since the decree remains partially unexecuted.
Issues: The main issues were whether the authority possesses the power to sell or dispose of seized goods to execute an eviction order fully, and whether the authority retains jurisdiction after only partial delivery of premises.
Ratio Decidendi: An express grant of statutory power to execute eviction includes the implied authority to use all necessary means to make such mandate effective. Because partial possession does not constitute a fully executed order, the authority must invoke appropriate procedural provisions from relevant codes to clear remaining articles and complete the recovery of the premises.
Result: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside and matter restored to the file of the authority for disposal in accordance with these observations.
JUDGMENT:
[I] Heard Mr. S. M. Gorwadkar, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Pankaj J. Dixit, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, learned AGP, for the Respondent – State. Although Respondent No.1 is duly served none appears for the Respondent No.1.
[II] Impugned Order :-
1. By the present Writ Petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the Order dated 10th January 2020 passed by the Competent Authority, Rent Control Act, Konkan Division, Mumbai below Exh.1 in Misc. Application No.31 of 2019 in Eviction Application No.59 of 2014 (“impugned Order”).
2. By the said Misc. Application No.31 of 2019, the Petitioner who is the Original Applicant before the Competent Authority, sought the following reliefs:-
“a) In pursuance to Judgment / Order dated 26/12/2014, kindly be allowed to sale the articles lying in application premises as mentioned in Panchnama dated 18/04/2015 to give complete vacant possession of the application premises in hands of applicant.
b) The Hon’ble Court be please to allow to applicant to recover the arrears of monthly compensation from the sale price of articles of the respondent lying in the application premises.”
3. The learned Competent Authority rejected the said Misc. Application No.31 of 2019 by impugned Order dated 10th January 2020. The relevant reasoning of the Competent Authority is to be found in Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the impugned Order 10th January 2020 which reads as under :-
“5. Perused the record. It is fact that this Authority has given possession of application premises to the applicant on 18.04.2015. It means that this Authority had executed order dated 26.12.2014. It is contention of applicant that during the execution proceeding officer of this Authority kept the articles in bedroom. It is fact that all the articles are kept in bed room during the proceeding of execution. It is settled principle of law that there is no provision to re-execute decree.
6. Apart from this, this Authority has constituted as per section 40 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as “the Act” for sake of brevity) to decide application filed under section 22, 23 and 24 of the Act. The proceedings under section 22, 23 and 24 of the Act is summary in nature, quasi judicial and specific procedure is prescribed under section 43 of the Act. Keeping in mind the provision of section 43 of the Act that has to be followed while disposing the application under chapter VIII. As per section 51 of the Act the proceedings before Competent Authority shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings for the purpose of section 193 and 298 of I.P.C. Also as per section 51 of the Act Competent Authority shall be deemed to be Civil Court for the purpose of section 345 and 346 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Thereby the power of the Competent Authority are well prescribed in the Act itself. There is no provision in Chapter VIII of the Act to sale, disposed off or to remove the sealed articles, which are seized and sealed during the execution proceeding. Apart from it, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Jain V/s. Marie Fernandes, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 431, held that the Competent Authority can not be termed as court. The ratio of the above cited supra case is applicable to the case in hand. In view of the above discussion and the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court the application is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. Hence, I pass following order.”
(Emphasis added)
[III] Points for consideration :-
1. The learned Competent Authority has inter alia held that the proceedings under Sections 22 , 23 and 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“Rent Act”) are of summary nature and the Competent Authority has no power to sale, dispose off or to remove the sealed articles which are seized and sealed during the execution proceedings. Thus, the point for consideration before thi
