Case Note & Summary
The case concerns eviction proceedings initiated by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) against the occupant, Niloufer Marshall, in respect of a flat and garage owned by LIC. The original tenant, Dr. Darasahah Bharucha, died on 11 September 1994. The occupant claimed she was Dr. Bharucha's niece, had resided with him, and under his Will, the premises were bequeathed to her, thereby claiming tenancy rights. LIC issued a termination notice on 25 January 1997 and filed an application under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, seeking eviction and damages. The Estate Officer passed an eviction order under Section 5(1) and directed recovery of damages under Section 7(2)(2A) of the Act, holding that the occupant was in unauthorised occupation and was never recognised as a tenant by LIC. The occupant appealed to the City Civil Court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the Estate Officer's order. LIC then filed the present civil revision application challenging the City Civil Court's order. LIC argued that the tenancy agreement signed by Dr. Bharucha contained a covenant barring assignment, sub-letting, or parting with possession without prior written consent, and that a testamentary bequest amounts to an assignment prohibited by the agreement. LIC also submitted that the Public Premises Act overrides rent control legislation and that government guidelines are non-statutory. The matter was reserved on 7 August 2025 and pronounced on 3 November 2025, but the final decision of the High Court is not included in the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent occupant is an unauthorised occupant of the public premises under Section 2(g) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; Whether the tenancy rights could be bequeathed under a Will in breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement; Whether the City Civil Court rightly set aside the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (11) 88
Civil Revision Application No. 427 of 2009
Mr. Sanglikar a/w. Mr. Roopadaksha Basu, Ms. Heenal Wadhwa i/b. The Law Point for the applicant; Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Yashpal Jain and Ms. Jahnavi Vora for respondent no.1
Life Insurance Corporation of India
1. Niloufer Marshall, 3. Rustom K. Bharucha, 4. Pheroze A. Bhatena
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, followed by an appeal and a civil revision application.
Remedy Sought
The applicant Life Insurance Corporation of India sought eviction of the respondent occupant from the subject premises and recovery of damages, claiming she was an unauthorised occupant after the death of the tenant.
Filing Reason
The occupant continued to occupy the premises after the tenant's death, asserting tenancy rights under a Will, despite the tenancy agreement barring assignment without consent.
Previous Decisions
The Estate Officer passed an eviction order and directed payment of damages. The City Civil Court allowed the occupant's appeal and set aside the Estate Officer's order. The applicant filed the present civil revision application challenging that order.
Issues
Whether the respondent occupant is an unauthorised occupant of the public premises under Section 2(g) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Whether the tenancy rights could be bequeathed under a Will in breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement.
Whether the City Civil Court rightly set aside the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer.
Submissions/Arguments
The occupant was never recognised as a tenant by the applicant and is in unauthorised occupation.
The tenancy agreement signed by Dr. Bharucha contained a covenant forbidding assignment, sub-letting or parting with possession without the applicant's prior written consent.
A testamentary bequest under a Will amounts to an assignment prohibited by the agreement, and the occupant cannot claim tenancy rights on that basis.
Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act must be read with clauses (g) and (j), and in the absence of agreed terms, assignment by the original tenant would breach the tenancy conditions.
The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 has overriding effect over rent control legislation, and a person in unauthorised occupation cannot invoke protection under the Rent Act.
Government guidelines are non-statutory and advisory in character and confer no right on an occupant of public premises.
No reasons are required for termination of tenancy under the said Act as the notice is issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The show cause notice for eviction was issued by the Estate Officer on prima facie satisfaction that the occupant is in unauthorised occupation.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that transfer or assignment includes testamentary disposition and a bar against transfer also applies to bequests under Wills.
Judgment Excerpts
Dr Bharucha had signed a tenancy agreement. Clause 9 contained a covenant that prevented him from assigning, sub-letting, or parting with possession of the subject premises, even if permitted by law.
The Hon’ble Apex Court held that transfer or assignment is not restricted to inter-vivos transactions. A bar against transfer assignment or parting of possession also applies to bequests under the Wills.
The occupant is unauthorisedly occupying the subject premises and she was never recognised as a tenant by the applicant.
Procedural History
Dr. Darasahah Bharucha, the last recorded tenant, died on 11 September 1994. The applicant issued a termination notice on 25 January 1997 addressed to the heirs and legal representatives of Dr. Bharucha and the occupant. The applicant filed an application under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 before the Estate Officer for eviction and damages. The Estate Officer issued show cause notices under Sections 4(2) and 7 of the Act. The occupant filed a written statement, and respondent nos. 2 to 4 submitted a letter. Issues were framed and evidence was led. The Estate Officer passed an order of eviction under Section 5(1) and directed recovery of damages with interest under Section 7(2)(2A). Aggrieved, the occupant preferred an appeal before the City Civil Court. The City Civil Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Estate Officer's decision. The applicant then filed the present Civil Revision Application No. 427 of 2009 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The Court reserved judgment on 7 August 2025 and pronounced it on 3 November 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971: 2(g), 4(2), 5(1), 7, 7(2), 7(2A)
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 106, 108
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 5(11)(c)
- Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956:
