Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by M/s Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (C.S.) Ltd. (the tenant/applicant) against the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), the landlord/non-applicant. The dispute arose from an eviction order passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, directing the tenant to vacate the premises and pay damages. The tenant's appeal under Section 9 of the Act was dismissed by the District Judge, Nagpur. The tenant had been a tenant of LIC in a building in Nagpur. LIC sought eviction for demolition and reconstruction, and initially filed an application under Clauses 13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. On 29-4-1988, the Rent Controller granted permission to issue quit notice under both clauses. The tenant appealed, and the Resident Deputy Collector, by order dated 11-9-1989, partly allowed the appeal, setting aside permission under Clause 13(3)(ii) but maintaining permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) (demolition and reconstruction). Subsequently, LIC initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act, and the Estate Officer passed the eviction order on 1-4-1991. The tenant challenged the eviction order in revision before the High Court. The main legal issue was whether the eviction order under the Public Premises Act could be sustained when the Rent Controller's permission under one clause had been set aside. The tenant argued that the eviction was invalid because the permission under Clause 13(3)(ii) was set aside. The landlord contended that the Public Premises Act is a special statute that overrides the Rent Control Order, and the Estate Officer's jurisdiction is exclusive. The High Court held that the Public Premises Act applies to public premises owned by LIC, and the Estate Officer's order is independent of the Rent Control proceedings. The court noted that the permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) for demolition and reconstruction remained valid, and the tenant's challenge was without merit. The revision was dismissed, upholding the eviction order.
Headnote
A) Public Premises Act - Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants - Section 5(1) - Jurisdiction of Estate Officer - The Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act has exclusive jurisdiction to evict unauthorised occupants from public premises, and the provisions of the Rent Control Order do not apply. The tenant's challenge to the eviction order on the ground that the Rent Controller's permission was partly set aside is not sustainable because the Estate Officer's order is independent and based on the landlord's bona fide need for demolition and reconstruction. (Paras 2-5) B) Rent Control Order - Permission to Issue Quit Notice - Clause 13(3)(ii) and (vi) - The Rent Controller granted permission under both clauses, but the appellate authority set aside permission under Clause 13(3)(ii) and maintained it under Clause 13(3)(vi) for demolition and reconstruction. The tenant cannot resist eviction under the Public Premises Act based on the partial setting aside of permission under one clause, as the permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) remains valid. (Paras 3-4) C) Civil Revision - Scope of Revision - Section 115 CPC - The High Court in revision cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact unless there is a jurisdictional error or perversity. The concurrent findings of the Estate Officer and District Judge that the premises are public premises and the tenant is an unauthorised occupant are not shown to be perverse or without jurisdiction. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and confirmed by the District Judge under Section 9 of the said Act, is sustainable in law when the tenant had earlier obtained a partial order from the appellate authority under the Rent Control Order setting aside permission under one clause but maintaining permission under another clause.
Final Decision
Civil Revision Application dismissed. Order of Estate Officer dated 1-4-1991 and order of District Judge dated 11-9-1989 upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Public Premises Act overrides Rent Control Order
- Estate Officer's jurisdiction is exclusive
- tenant cannot challenge eviction after permission for demolition and reconstruction is granted under Rent Control Order
