Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from eviction proceedings initiated by the Bank of Maharashtra against Mehta Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd., a company in occupation of premises owned by the bank. The bank claimed that the company’s tenancy had been terminated way back in 1974 and that the premises were required for the bank’s own expanding banking activities, thus rendering the occupation unauthorised under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. A show cause notice dated 17th January, 1991 was issued by the Estate Officer, calling upon the company to explain why an eviction order should not be passed. The company, along with its director and shareholder, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court on 17th September, 1991, seeking to quash the eviction proceedings and a mandamus to restrain the Estate Officer from acting without first offering inspection and furnishing certain documents. The High Court admitted the petition on 24th September, 1991 and granted an interim stay of the eviction proceedings, which was confirmed on 3rd October, 1991. During the pendency of the petition, the Central Government issued guidelines on 14th January, 1992 and 30th May, 2002, which clarified that the Public Premises Act should not be used to evict authorised tenants merely to accommodate employees or for commercial redevelopment. A clarification dated 15th August, 1992 reiterated that banks and public sector undertakings could not resort to the Act to vacate authorised tenants for such purposes. The petitioners amended the petition to bring these guidelines on record and argued that the eviction proceedings were contrary to the guidelines and therefore liable to be quashed. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the guidelines were not binding on the Estate Officer. The court, after considering the submissions, noted that a Division Bench of the same court in Crawford Bayley & Co. v. Union of India had already held that a challenge to a show cause notice on the ground of violation of guidelines cannot be entertained at the pre-decisional stage, as the petitioner has an adequate alternate remedy of raising the contention before the Estate Officer and in appeal. The court further observed that while the guidelines, particularly the 2002 guidelines, had been held to have statutory force by another Division Bench in Persis Kothawalla v. LIC, the question of their applicability in the present case should be first examined by the Estate Officer. Accordingly, the High Court declined to quash the eviction notice and instead disposed of the writ petition with a series of directions aimed at ensuring a fair hearing. The Estate Officer was given liberty to proceed with the eviction proceedings in accordance with law, but all rights and contentions of the petitioners were kept open. The respondents were directed to furnish inspection of the documents mentioned in Exhibits D and E, and any other documents to which the petitioners were entitled in law. Further, the court directed that if oral evidence was led, cross-examination of witnesses would be allowed; the Estate Officer was to give reasons for each of his findings and for each contention raised by the petitioners; and in the event of an adverse order, it would not be implemented for a period of twelve weeks after a copy was furnished to the petitioners. No order as to costs was passed.
Headnote
A) Public Premises - Eviction of Authorised Tenants - Applicability of Central Government Guidelines - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, Sections 3, 5 - The Central Government guidelines dated 14.1.1992, 15.8.1992, and 30.5.2002 stipulate that eviction under the Act should be used primarily against unauthorised occupants and not against genuine authorised tenants merely for commercial purposes or to accommodate employees. The Division Bench in Persis Kothawalla held that the 2002 guidelines have statutory force and are binding under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Held that the Estate Officer must consider the applicability of these guidelines to the petitioner's case (Paras 7-10). B) Writ Jurisdiction - Premature Challenge to Show Cause Notice - Alternate Remedy - Constitution of India, Articles 226, 14 - A writ petition challenging a show cause notice under the Public Premises Act on the ground that it violates Central Government guidelines cannot be entertained at the pre-decisional stage. The petitioner has an adequate alternate remedy of raising all contentions before the Estate Officer and, if necessary, in appeal before the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court. Following Crawford Bayley & Co. v. Union of India, the High Court declined to quash the notice and instead directed the proceedings to continue with safeguards (Paras 12-13). C) Natural Justice - Procedural Safeguards in Eviction Proceedings - Right to Inspection and Cross-examination - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - To ensure a fair hearing, the court directed that the respondents shall furnish inspection of documents referred to in Exhibits D and E, and any other documents to which the petitioners are entitled. If oral evidence is led, the parties shall be permitted to cross-examine witnesses. The Estate Officer must give reasons for each finding and on each contention, and any adverse order shall not be implemented for twelve weeks after a copy is furnished to the petitioners (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 can be quashed at the stage of show cause notice on the ground that they violate Central Government guidelines, and whether the Estate Officer is bound by such guidelines.
Final Decision
Writ Petition disposed of. Estate Officer at liberty to proceed with eviction in accordance with law. All contentions of petitioners kept open. Respondents to provide inspection of documents. Oral evidence to be allowed with cross-examination. Estate Officer to give reasoned findings. If order adverse, not to be implemented for twelve weeks after copy furnished. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Central Government guidelines under Public Premises Act have statutory force and are binding on public authorities under Article 14
- Estate Officer must consider applicability of guidelines before ordering eviction
- challenge to show cause notice not entertainable at pre-decisional stage when adequate alternate remedy exists
