9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground of eviction had been mentioned therein, another notice was issued on 18th February, 2002 enumerating the grounds of eviction. Replies were given thereto by the respondent. Appellant filed an application before the Estate Officer praying for eviction of the respondent and for damages for unauthorized occupation of the premises with effect from 1st April, 2002 @ Rs.4,91,700/- per month with interest @ 9 % per annum thereupon. 5. The Estate Officer purported to be satisfied that the occupation of the first respondent is unauthorized and that an order of eviction may have been passed against it issued a show cause notice to respondent No.1 on 28th July, 2003 under Section 4 of the Act. The grounds for first respondent eviction as set out in the application were :- \0231. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. needs and requires the premises for its own use and occupation for accommodating its own senior executives ; 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is being evicted from tenanted premises and being called upon to pay exhorbitant rents for tenanted premises ; 3. Increase in business, globalization of economy and liberalization of policies have necessitated the New India Assuran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th February, 2002. Composite application was filed by the appellant under Sections 4 and 7 of the Act before the Estate Officer on 16th January, 2003 whereupon two show cause notices were issued by the Estate Officer to the first respondents in terms of Section 4 and 7(3) of the Act on 21st February, 2003. 9. Before the Estate Officer, the appellant filed its affidavits of evidence. Dates after dates were fixed for cross-examination of the witnesses of the appellant. Appellant had been taking adjournments in the matter. On 22nd August, 2005 the first respondent moved an application for direction before the Estate Officer. On or about 20th September, 2005 the appellant had filed an application inter alia stating that as it had already placed all the evidence on record, it was for the first respondent to file its evidence and produce witnesses first for cross-examination by it and prayed inter alia for the following relief :- the Opposite Party be directed to show cause to the Statutory Notice issued by the erstwhile Learned Estate Officer under sections 4 and 7 of the PP Act and the case submitted by the Applicants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he first respondent in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8232 of 2006 would submit that: (a) Section 4 of the Act deals with two types of cases; first those who are in unauthorised occupation in the sense of being in occupation without any authority therefor which is governed by the first part of Section 4 of the Act; and second, those who have continued in occupation of public premises as Rent Control Acts permitted them to continue to occupy but in respect whereof the tenancy has been terminated for any reason whatsoever\024 as envisaged in Section 2(g) of the Act. (b) Whereas in the first group of cases the onus of proof would be on the tenant to establish that no order of eviction should be passed, however, in the second group of cases it would be for the landlord to establish their bona fide need, although the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act stricto sensu are not applicable, having regard to the statutory scheme as also the principles of natural justice which are required to be complied with. (c) As the Act and the Rules envisage a lis between the parties and the decision of the Estate Officer is an appealable one, not only evidence is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is proposed to be made; and (b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises,-- (i) to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than seven days from the date of issue thereof, and (ii) to appear before the estate officer on the date specified in the notice along with the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown, and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired. (3) The estate officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. 17. Section 5 deals with the procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants. It reads :- Section 5 - Eviction of unauthorised occupants.- (1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and any evidence produced by him in support of the same and after personal hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect arriving thereunder, the Central Government had, from time to time, issued several guidelines. The guidelines so issued are dated 14th January, 1992 ; 5th August, 1992 ; 7th July, 1993 ; 14th July, 1993 ; 23rd July, 1993; 9th June, 1998, 2nd September, 2002 and 23rd July, 2003. In terms of the said guidelines, however, a distinction is sought to be made between a tenant who is rich or industrialist etc. vis-a-vis a person who is poor and uses the tenanted premises only for his residence as would appear from the guidelines dated 23rd July, 2003, the relevant portion whereof reads as under :- 3. The Government Resolution dated 30.05.2002 embodies the guidelines dated 14.01.1992 for observance by the Public Sector Undertakings. However, clarification was issued vide OM No.21011/790 Pol.1 IV.H.11 dated 07.07.1993 that the guidelines are meant for genuine non affluent tenants and these are not applicable to the large business houses and commercial entrepreneurs. 22. Issuance of such guidelines, however, is not being controlled by statutory provisions. The effect thereof is advisory in character and thereby no legal right is conferred upon the tenant. (See :Narendra Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bona fide need on its part but also quantum of damages to which it may hold to be entitled to, in the event that an order is passed in favour of the establishment. 29. Admittedly in these cases two notices for eviction were issued. If the contention of Mr. Lekhi is correct, the first notice was not required to be withdrawn and the second notice was not required to be issued, specifying the grounds on which the eviction of the respondents were sought for. 30. When an application for eviction is based on such grounds, which require production of positive evidence on part of the landlord, in our opinion, it would be for it to adduce evidence first; more so in a composite application where the evidence is also required to be led on the quantum of damages to be determined by the Estate Officer. 31. There may be a case where the tenant may take a defence which discloses no prima facie case in which event the Estate Officer may ask him to lead evidence. But there may be cases where the ground of eviction, having regard to the defence taken by the occupants, may be required to be gone into. 32. Appellant stand in this case is clear and unambiguous. It intends to evict the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Control Act as has been held by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in AIR 1968 Calcutta 1 : Standard Literature Co. Private Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union of India, but with a view to interpret the provisions of the Act, we must take into consideration the decisions of this Court laying down the concept of bona fide act and the fair action on the part of the owner as laid down in (1989) 3 SCC 293 Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay and (1990) 4 SCC 406 : Ashoka Marketing Ltd vs. Punjab National Bank. 40. In Dwarkadas Marfatia (supra) this Court clearly held that the public authorities which enjoy this benefit without being hidebound by the requirements of the Rent Act must act for public benefit. Hence, to that extent, that is liable to be gone into and can be the subject matter of adjudication. Dwarkadas Marfatia was applied in Ashoka Marketing (supra) stating :- 69. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that many of the corporations referred to in Section 2( e )(2)( ii ) of the Public Premises Act, like the nationalised banks and the Life Insurance Corporation, ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in AIR 1956 All. 507 (DB) Brigadier Commandant, Meerut vs. Gangaprasad ; 58 CWN 1056 : Jaggu Singh vs. Shakuat Ali and 1957 (59) PLR 621 : Satish Chander vs. Delhi Improvement Trust. 1950 Act was repealed by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 wherein, however the jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred. A Constitution Bench of this Court in 1967 (3) SCC 399 : Northern India Caterers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab held Section 5 thereof to be void as an additional remedy over and above the usual remedy by way of a suit was conferred thereby providing for two alternative remedies or leaving it to the unguided discretion of the Statutory Authorities to resort to one or the other procedure. Northern India Caterers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), however, was overruled by a Bench of 7 Judges of this Court in (1974) 2 SCC 402 : Maganlal Chaganlal vs. Municipal Corporation. We must also notice that 1958 Act was struck down by Delhi High Court in P.L. Mehra vs. D.R. Khanna (Civil Writ No. 431 of 197). 42. On the aforementioned premises the 1971 Act was enacted after removing the vice which led to it having been declared as void with effect from 16th September, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - The application of the principle of natural justice does not imply that what is not evidence can be acted upon. On the other hand what it means is that no material can be relied upon to establish a contested fact which are not spoken to by persons who are competent to speak about them and are subjected to cross-examination by the party against whom they are sought to be used. 46. It is axiomatic that when in support of its case the landlord intends to rely upon a document which is to be taken on record, it would be obligatory on the part of the Estate Officer to allow inspection thereof to the noticee. Denial of such inspection of documents shall be violative of the principle of natural justice. It would run counter to the doctrine of fairness in the matter of determination of a lis between the parties. 47. We may also notice that in Sarbananda Sonowal (II) vs. Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 174 this Court having regard to the fact that burden of proof was on the notice held : 56. Status of a person, however, is determined according to statute. The Evidence Act of our country has made provisions as regards burden of proof. Different statutes also lay down as to how and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India is required to prove fairness and reasonableness on its part in initiating a proceeding, it is for it to show how its prayer meets the constitutional requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For proper interpretation not only the basic principles of natural justice have to be borne in mind, but also principles of constitutionalism involved therein. With a view to read the provisions of the Act in a proper and effective manner, we are of the opinion that literal interpretation, if given, may give rise to an anomaly or absurdity which must be avoided. So as to enable a superior court to interpret a statute in a reasonable manner, the court must place itself in the chair of a reasonable legislator/ author. So done, the rules of purposive construction have to be resorted to which would require the construction of the Act in such a manner so as to see that the object of the Act fulfilled; which in turn would lead the beneficiary under the statutory scheme to fulfill its constitutional obligations as held by the court inter alia in Ashoka Marketing Ltd (supra). 51. Barak in his exhaustive work on Purposive Construction explains various meanings attributed to the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... derived from the Roman law, and is supportable not only upon the ground of fairness, but also upon that of the greater practical difficulty which is involved improving a negative than in proving an affirmative [Hals 3rd Ed Vol 15 para 488]. (Emphasis supplied) 55. The said principle has been approved by this Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal vs. Bank of Baroda and others (1983) 4 SCC 491 ; Garden Silk Mills Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others (1999) 8 SCC 744 and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. K.P. Agrawal and another (2007) 2 SCC 433 (para 18). 56. We, however, must not shut our eyes to the objects for which the Act was enacted. It provided for a speedy remedy. The Estate Officer is expected to arrive at a decision as expeditiously as possible. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act being not applicable, what is necessary to be complied with is the principles of natural justice. 57. Even if we assume that in terms of the statutory provisions the respondents must lead evidence first the same can be waived, Appellant not only had filed affidavits in one of the cases but time and again sought adjournments when the deponent of the affidavit was to be cross- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
