Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
⏳ Remaining Time: 4d 18h 53m 19s
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2018 (12) TMI 1731 - HC - Indian LawsHanding over of subject premises (public premises) by the petitioner - Lease agreement - Proceedings for eviction of petitioner from the subject premises - the jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked by petitioners by alleging mala fide. HELD THAT - A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in ASHOKA MARKETING LTD. VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK PNB 1990 (8) TMI 393 - SUPREME COURT has clearly reiterated that Public Premises under the PP Act means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government and includes any such premises which have been placed by that government whether before or after the commencement of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Amendment Act 1980 - A Division Bench of this Court and other several Single Bench decisions of this Court has ruled that correctness or otherwise of the allegations regarding determination of a Lease has to be decided by the concerned authority under the PP Act. Malafide intent - HELD THAT - It has not been shown as to how the impugned order is vitiated by mala fide or what is the bias. It is not spelt out as to what is the oblique motive in passing of the impugned order - the allegations of mala fide are preposterous and no note of these allegations is required to be taken. In the instant case the allegations of mala fide levelled by petitioners are bald and unspecific and so no notice of these allegations is taken. The subject premises was leased out to legendary AJL for its publication but the dominant purpose is now practically lost. This Court is constrained to observe that major portion of the subject premises has been rented out and petitioners newspaper which was to be housed originally in the basement and ground floor has now been shifted on the top floor with hardly any press activity - Though in the instant case beneficial interest of petitioner-AJL is not technically transferred by way of sale/mortgage/gift but it falls under the last category of or otherwise as by the afore-noted novel modus operandi AJL has been taken over by Young Indian Company for all practical purposes. This Court is conscious of the fact that Young Indian Company is a charitable company but modus operandi to acquire 99% of AJL s shares speaks volumes. The manner in which it has been done is also questionable. This Court is of the considered view that by no process of reasoning can it be said that the subject premises is not liable to be proceeded against under the PP Act. In the opinion of this Court impugned order is well reasoned and it amply justifies the re-entry of respondent in the subject premises . There is no impediment in the way of respondent to invoke the provisions of the PP Act to seek eviction of petitioners in case petitioners do not voluntarily vacate the subject premises and hand over its vacant possession to respondent-Land and Development Officer within a period of two weeks from today. Petition disposed off.
|