Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Indian Petro Chemicals Corporation Limited, a Government company, occupied premises on the 9th and 19th floors of Air India Building, Mumbai, under a leave and licence arrangement with Air India Limited, also a Government company. The arrangement dated back to 1975 and 1979. In February 1995, Air India terminated the licence, stating the premises were required for its own use. Proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PPE Act) were initiated. A first Estate Officer issued a show cause notice under Section 4 in November 1995, but the matter did not conclude. In April 1999, a new Estate Officer issued a fresh notice under Section 4, this time adding the ground of security concerns, referencing the 1993 bomb blast. The petitioner challenged the second notice on the basis that no such ground existed in the original termination notice and that the Estate Officer had no material to form an opinion on security. The Estate Officer passed an eviction order on 6 December 2000. The petitioner appealed under Section 9 before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, which dismissed the appeal on 31 January 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the eviction proceedings and orders. The petitioner's principal argument was that the PPE Act cannot be used by one government company against another, as the Act was enacted to evict unauthorised private occupants in the interest of the Government. The petitioner also contended that the second notice was void for lack of jurisdictional facts and that the Estate Officer's power was exhausted after the first notice. The matter was heard and reserved on 5 November 2012, and judgment pronounced on 17 December 2012. The available text of the judgment sets out the background facts and records the petitioner's submissions in detail, but the courts reasoning and final decision are not included in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Applicability to Government Companies - Section 4 - Whether the Act can be invoked by one government company against another government company - Petitioner contended that the Act was intended to evict unauthorised private occupants and not public sector undertakings, and that public interest would not be served by evicting a government body - Para 13.
B) Administrative Law - Void Orders - Estate Officer's second eviction notice added security ground without any factual basis - Notice alleged void ab initio for lack of jurisdictional facts - Para 7, 10.
C) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Estate Officer's Power - Section 4 - Once an Estate Officer forms an opinion and issues a show cause notice, the authority stands exhausted; a fresh appointee cannot rely on new material to issue a second notice - Para 10.
D) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 - Petition filed challenging eviction order as being without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice - Para 2, 13.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 can be invoked by one government company against another government company; Whether the second eviction notice dated 19th April 1999 issued by the Estate Officer on the additional ground of security was valid and based on material before the Estate Officer
Law Points
- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act
- 1971 not intended for disputes between government entities
- Estate Officer must have sufficient material for forming opinion
- second eviction notice void if no new material
- jurisdictional facts must exist at time of issuance
- provisions of PPE Act cannot be used against another government company
- summary procedure under the Act meant for eviction of private individuals
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (12) 20
Writ Petition No. 619 of 2011
K.J. Presswala, Sandeep Goyal, Satish Upadhyay
Indian Petro Chemicals Corporation Limited
Air India Limited, Makrand Joshi (Estate Officer), Union of India
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to eviction proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, by one government company against another.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought writ of certiorari to quash the termination notice dated 10th/14th February 1995, the eviction notice dated 19th April 1999, the eviction order dated 6th December 2000 passed by the Estate Officer, and the appellate order dated 31st January 2007 passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the eviction order and the appellate authority's dismissal of its appeal, contending that the proceedings were without jurisdiction, void, and contrary to the purpose of the Act.
Previous Decisions
Estate Officer (respondent No. 2) passed eviction order on 6th December 2000; Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, dismissed Misc. Appeal No. 261 of 2001 on 31st January 2007.
Issues
Whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 can be invoked by one government company against another government company.
Whether the second eviction notice dated 19th April 1999 issued by the Estate Officer on the ground of security was valid, given that the original termination notice did not mention security and the Estate Officer allegedly had no material to form that opinion.
Whether the issuance of a second notice by a newly appointed Estate Officer after the first Estate Officer had already issued a notice under Section 4 was permissible in law.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the PPE Act is intended to evict unauthorised private occupants in the public interest and cannot be used between two public sector undertakings; invoking the Act against another government company defeats its purpose.
Petitioner contended that the second eviction notice was void ab initio because the Estate Officer had no material before him to form an opinion on the security ground, which was not even mentioned in the original termination notice by Air India.
Petitioner submitted that once an Estate Officer forms an opinion and issues a show cause notice under Section 4, that authority becomes exhausted; a new Estate Officer cannot issue a fresh notice on additional grounds without new jurisdictional facts.
Petitioner also highlighted that earlier proceedings (No. 8 of 1995) had been left unconcluded, and the dispute should have been referred to a High Power Committee for arbitration as per government guidelines.
Judgment Excerpts
The notice is therefore void as the jurisdictional facts did not exist at the time of issuance of the notice.
The object behind enacting the Act was the dominant public interest of the Government so that Government and Government companies and Corporation may be able to obtain the premises occupied by the private parties and individuals unauthorisedly, in an expeditious manner.
Once this is done, the authority of an Estate Officer to issue a show cause notice is exhausted.
Procedural History
1 August 1975: Petitioner granted leave and licence for premises on 9th floor, Air India Building. 16 February 1979: Additional premises on 19th floor allotted. 10th/14th February 1995: Air India issued notice terminating licence, citing own use. 23 February 1995: Petitioner replied disputing service charges. 3 November 1995: First Estate Officer issued show cause notice under Section 4 of PPE Act. 6 January 1996: Show cause notice under Section 7 for damages. 19 April 1999: Second Estate Officer issued fresh notice under Section 4, adding security ground. 19 June 1999: Petitioner filed reply to second notice. 6 December 2000: Estate Officer passed eviction order. 31 January 2007: Principal Judge, City Civil Court, dismissed Misc. Appeal No. 261 of 2001. 22 February 2007: Petitioner received certified copy of appellate order. 2011: Writ Petition No. 619 of 2011 filed before Bombay High Court. 5 November 2012: Matter reserved for judgment. 17 December 2012: Oral judgment pronounced.
Acts & Sections
- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971: 4, 7, 9
- Companies Act, 1956: 617
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
