Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Askay & Co Pvt Ltd, was a tenant of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) in premises at Great Social Building, Bombay, since 1946-47. The petitioner sublet the premises to respondent no.2, M/s Parekh Sales Corporation, without LIC's consent. LIC initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The Estate Officer passed an eviction order on 29.9.1993 in Reference Application Nos.194 and 194-A of 1992, ordering eviction and damages. The petitioner appealed to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, in Misc.Appeal No.137 of 1993. The appellate court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the eviction order but setting aside the damages order. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the appellate judgment. The High Court considered whether the subletting without consent constituted unauthorised occupation. The court held that the subletting was without the consent of LIC, and therefore the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant under Section 5(1) of the Act. The eviction order was valid and the appeal was dismissed. The court did not interfere with the setting aside of the damages order.
Headnote
A) Public Premises Act - Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants - Section 5(1) - Subletting - The petitioner, a tenant of LIC, sublet the premises to respondent no.2 without LIC's consent. The Estate Officer passed an eviction order under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which was upheld by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court in appeal. The High Court held that subletting without consent renders the tenant an unauthorised occupant, and the eviction order was valid. (Paras 1-2)
B) Public Premises Act - Damages for Unauthorised Occupation - Section 7 - The Estate Officer's order for damages was set aside by the appellate court, and the High Court did not interfere with that part. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the subletting of premises by the tenant to a third party without the consent of the landlord (LIC) amounts to unauthorised occupation under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and whether the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer and upheld by the appellate court is valid.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer and confirmed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court. The court held that the subletting of premises without the consent of LIC rendered the petitioner an unauthorised occupant under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Law Points
- Subletting without landlord's consent constitutes unauthorised occupation under Public Premises Act
- 1971
- Section 5(1)
- Estate Officer has jurisdiction to evict unauthorised occupants
- Appeal against eviction order lies to Principal Judge
- City Civil Court under Section 9 of the Act
- Damages for unauthorised occupation can be assessed separately.
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (04) 13
Writ Petition No.6268 of 1995
B.H.Marlapalle, D.B.Bhosale
Mr. S.M.Sakhardande with Mrs S.S.Wagh for petitioners; Mr V.Y.Sanglikar for LIC-Respondent no.1; Mr Phirdosh Pooniwalla i/b M/s Kanga & Co for Respondent no.2
Life Insurance Corporation of India, M/s Parekh Sales Corporation, Enquiry Officer, Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, in Misc.Appeal No.137 of 1993, which partly allowed the appeal against the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the appellate judgment and order dated 4.10.1995 and the eviction order dated 29.9.1993.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer and upheld by the appellate court, on the ground that the subletting of premises to respondent no.2 without LIC's consent did not amount to unauthorised occupation.
Previous Decisions
The Estate Officer passed an eviction order on 29.9.1993 in Reference Application Nos.194 and 194-A of 1992. The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, partly allowed the appeal in Misc.Appeal No.137 of 1993 on 4.10.1995, upholding the eviction order but setting aside the damages order.
Issues
Whether the subletting of premises by the petitioner to respondent no.2 without the consent of LIC constitutes unauthorised occupation under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Whether the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer and upheld by the appellate court is valid.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the subletting was with the consent of LIC, or alternatively, that the subletting did not amount to unauthorised occupation under the Act.
The respondents (LIC and Parekh Sales Corporation) argued that the subletting was without consent and therefore the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant, justifying eviction.
Ratio Decidendi
Subletting of public premises by a tenant without the consent of the landlord (LIC) constitutes unauthorised occupation under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and the Estate Officer has jurisdiction to order eviction. The appellate court's order upholding eviction but setting aside damages was not interfered with.
Judgment Excerpts
This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Judgment and order dated 4.10.1995 rendered by the learned in-charge Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay in Misc.Appeal No.137 of 1993, by which the petitioners’ appeal was partly allowed.
The facts set out in the writ petition reveal that in 1946-47 the petitioner acquired tenancy in respect of the suit premises from the then landlords, viz. Great Social Building...
Procedural History
The Estate Officer passed an eviction order on 29.9.1993 in Reference Application Nos.194 and 194-A of 1992 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The petitioner appealed to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, in Misc.Appeal No.137 of 1993, which was partly allowed on 4.10.1995, upholding the eviction order but setting aside the damages order. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which was dismissed on 5.4.2006.
Acts & Sections
- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971: 5(1), 7, 9
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
