2014 Supreme(SC) 100

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. Gokhale, J. Chelameswar, JJ.
Dr. Suhas H. Pophale – Appellant
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Its Estate Officer – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1970 OF 2014 (@ out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.20625/2010)
Decided On : February 11, 2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Public Premises Act is prospective in nature. Cannot be applied to a tenant who became protected under the Rent Control Act before the premises becoming public premises.

Headnote:(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 – Section 15A and Section 2(g), Public Premises Act, 1971 – Contention that a protected tenant cannot be in unauthorised occupation – Rejected being incongruent. (Para 25)

       (1986) 3 SCR 866 – Distinguished

       (b) Public Premises Act, 1971 – Section 1(3) and 2(e) – Provisions with respect to eviction under deemed to have come into force from 16.9.1958 – But will apply to concerned premises only from the date when they become public premises. (Para 26)

       AIR 1984 SC 1813; AIR 1997 SC 1711 – Relied upon

       AIR 1982 Bombay 443; AIR 1965 SC 1923 – Distinguished

       (c) Interpretation of statutes – Harmonious interpretation – Public Premises Act provides speedier remedy to protect public property – Rent Control Act, on the other hand, is Welfare legislation providing protection to deemed tenant – Both provisions have to interpreted harmoniously. (Para 30)

       (d) 21Public Premises Act, 1971 – Section 2(e) – ‘Belonging to’ – Imply only the premises owned by or taken on lease by the Government Company at the relevant time. (Para 30)

       (e) Eviction Law – Appellant attaining status of deemed tenant prior to the premises becoming ‘belonging to a Government Company’ and public premises – Could be evicted by following process as available under the Rent Control Act and not under the provisions of the Public Premises Act. (Para 30)

       (f) Bombay Trent Act, 1947 – Section 15A – Right of protected tenant accruing to appellant before the premises becoming public premises – Appellant would continue to have his protection – Public Premises Act not having retrospective operation expressly or by implication – Appellant’s rights cannot be destroyed by giving any retrospective application to the provisions of Public Premises Act. (Para 31, 39)

       AIR 1951 SC 124; AIR 1957 SC 540; AIR 1960 SC 936; AIR 1965 SC 1970; AIR 1969 SC 778; AIR 1970 SC 703; (1984) 3 SCC 281; AIR 1995 SC 1012; AIR 1997 SC 412 – Relied upon

       (g) Public Premises Act, 1971 – Section 15 – Two categories of occupants excluded from the Act – One in occupation since prior to 16.9.1958 – Secondly, those who come in occupation after 16.9.1958 but prior to the premises becoming public premises, and are protected under State Rent Act – Act not being retrospective the premises became public premises in 1974, much after occupation by appellant and becoming protected tenant, appellant cannot be evicted under the Act. (Para 48 to 52)

       (2011) 13 SCC 446; (2006) 5 SCC 167; AIR1993 SC 43 – Relied upon

       (1990) 4 SCC 406 – Referred

       (1980) 4 SCC 435; (1989) 3 SCC 396 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       One Mr. Eric Voller was a tenant of the predecessor of the respondent Oriental Insurance Co. Mr. Voller executed a leave and licence agreement in respect of these premises on 20.12.1972 in favour of the appellant initially for a period of two years, and put him in exclusive possession thereof. Mr. Voller, thereafter migrated to Canada with his family.

       The erstwhile insurance company did not object to the appellant coming into exclusive possession of the said premises. In fact, when Mr. Voller sought the transfer of the tenancy to the appellant, the General Manager of the said insurance company accepted the appellant as the tenant, though for residential purposes only. The erstwhile insurance company, thereafter, started accepting the rent directly from the appellant. Even the erstwhile Insurance Co. had no objection to change of user provided the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai gave no objection.

       The first respondent addressed a notice dated 12.7.1980 to Mr. E. Voller terminating his tenancy with respect to the said premises, and then filed a suit for eviction against Mr. E. Voller and the appellant under the provisions of the then applicable Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947.

       The appellant then sent a letter dated 22.11.1984 to the first respondent requesting them to regularize his tenancy as a statutory tenant. The first respondent, however, served the appellant notices under Section 4 and 7 of the Public Premises Act, for eviction and damages. A Case was filed before the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act, to evict Mr. E. Voller and the appellant, and also to recover the damages.

       After initiating these proceedings, the first respondent withdrew on 22.2.1994 the suit filed in the Court of Small Causes.

       The Estate Officer directed eviction of Mr. E. Voller and the appellant, and also for recovery of damages at the rate of Rs.6750 per month from 1.9.1980.

       The City Civil Court set aside the order of damages but upheld the order of eviction.

       The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant with costs.

       Finding of the Court:

       Public Premises Act is not applicable to the facts of the case.