Back
2002(2) Supreme 476
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kolkata High Court)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
State of West Bengal & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Vishnunarayan and Associates (P) Ltd. & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6899 of 1999
With
C.A. Nos. 6900, 6902, 6903, 6904, 6901, 6905, 6906, 6907, 6908, 6909, 6910, 6911 and 6912 of 1999
Decided on 19-3-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Solicitor General, V.R. Reddy, Tapas Ray, Senior Advocates, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Ajay Sharma, T.C. Sharma, K.V. Vishwanathan, Ms. Shruti Chaudhri, Suman J. Khaitan, Gaurav Jain, Ms. Abha Jain, P. Agarwal, L.C. Agrawala, C. Mukund, Ashok K. Jain, B.K. Jain, R.K. Jain, Vibhu Bhakaru, P.N. Puri, Advocates.
Held : It is not disputed that there was a relationship of landlord and tenants between the erstwhile company and the respondents. The rights and obligation of the landlord and tenant would be governed either by the Transfer of Property Act or by rent law in force and the tenancy of the demised premises could be terminated by taking action under the provisions of either of these two Acts and possession thereof could be recovered in accordance with law. Though under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 1980, the undertaking vested in the State Government free from any trust, obligation, mortgage, change, lien and all other encumbrances, we are unable to agree with the learned Additional Solicitor General that under the said sub-section (1) the relationship of landlord and tenant in the case in hand was put to an end inasmuch as the tenancy could not be treated as trust, obligation, mortgage and change, etc. as stated in the said sub-section. In regard to sub-section (2) which provides that any contract in relation to the undertaking shall be deemed to have terminated on the appointed day, on the same analogy, we hold that by this deeming provision does not relate to the relationship of landlord and tenant which could not be said to have come to an end. Consequently, we find no force in the submission of Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and we hold that even after taking over the undertaking by virtue of the Act of 1980, the relationship of the landlord and the tenant continued and in place of the erstwhile company, the State Government stepped into the shoes of landlord. (Para 15)
By the long title the legislature made it clear that the Great Eastern Hotel was acquired by the Act of 1980 for purpose of ensuring better facilities for boarding and lodging to the members of the public and for matters connected therewith. As held by the High Court the hotel, which is a star hotel is meant for use by the affluent section of the society and not for general public. The term members of the public would mean occupants of the hotel, who can use the hotel on payment and not general public. Therefore, this is purely commercial venture and there was no element of public purpose or public interest. (Para 19)
Such an action of eviction by force cannot be justified in law and for taking possession, action has to be taken in accordance with the law. (Para 20)
(ii) West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976-Section 6A-Eviction of unauthorised occupants-Taking over of undertaking of a Hotel by Government - Occupants of Hotel who were tenants of shops, offices and godowns-Whether could be evicted applying provisions of Section 6A of the Act?-(No)-Section 6A can be invoked against any person, who is not a tenant or who remains in occupation of government premises without written order of prescribed authority. (Para 23)
JUDGMENT
Phukan, J.-These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court by which a batch of Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution was disposed of. By this judgment we dispose of all these appeals.
2. The undisputed facts are as follows:
The management of the Undertaking of the Company namely the Great Eastern Hotel Ltd. was taken over by the State Government by invoking the provisions of the Great Eastern Hotel (Taking over of Management) Act, 1975. Subsequently, by the Great Eastern Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1980 (for short the Act of 1980 ), the Undertaking of the Company i.e. the Great Eastern Hotel was taken over by the Government. The Government transferred the undertaking of the Company to the Great Eastern Hotel Authority (for short Hotel Authority), which was set up under Section 5 of the Act of 1980 except the lands and the building. On December 12, 1994, according to the direction of the State Government, the Great Eastern Hotel Authority issued a circular to various occupants of the premises of the hotel giving them an opportunity to establish if they had any right to remain in occupation but there was no response. On June 28, 1997, as the occupants failed to deliver possession, the representative of the Government went to the hotel premises and gave oral notice to the occupants to deliver possession. They were also informed that possession if not delivered, would be taken over by force. On June 29, 1997 the State Government removed the occupants from the hotel premises and took possession with the help of police.
3. Some of the occupants of the hotel who were evicted by use of force are respondents in all these appeals. It is the undisputed case of the parties that the respondents were tenants of shops, offices and go-downs in the hotel under the erstwhile company and were in occupation of their respective portions. The respondents filed Writ Petitions before the High Court challenging the action of the Government in dispossessing them by force and prayed for restoration of possession claiming that they were lawful tenants having been inducted by the previous owners and even after coming into force of the Act of 1980, the Hotel Authority had dealt with them as tenants by accepting rent and that there was no lawful termination of their tenancy. It was also pleaded that such action of eviction by force with the help of police resorted to by the appellants lacked legal authority and was illegal, further it was also in violation of the principle of natural justice as the respondents were not given an opportunity of showing cause against their eviction.
4. On behalf of the appellant-State, writ petitions were resisted before the High Court, inter alia, on the following grounds:
1. that the tenancy of the respondents stood automatically terminated under the Act of 1980 and
2. that under the provisions of the said Act they were legally bound to deliver possession of the suit premises to the State Government and on their failure to do so, they could be evicted by force by invoking the provisions of West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation} Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1976 ).
5. It was also pleaded that as the suit premises were required for public purpose, so the government could resort to use of force for evicting the respondents.
6. To appreciate the contention raised before us, it would be necessary to extract the definition of the expression undertaking in clause (f) or Section 2, Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1980:
"Section 2 : Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-
(a) to (e) ............
(f) undertaking of the company" means the properties, both movable and immovable, cash balances, reserve funds and other assets of the company including lands, building, machineries, plants, furniture, equipments, stores
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
