Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, pre-nationalisation tenants of premises belonging to Dena Bank, challenged eviction proceedings initiated against them under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, before the Estate Officer, Mr. E. Rajshekhar. They argued that as pre-nationalisation tenants, they could not be treated as unauthorised occupants under the Act, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Additionally, they contended that the Estate Officer was biased because he had himself recommended the eviction action and proposed a line of action. The court, after hearing both sides, allowed the petitions, holding that the petitioners could not be proceeded against under the Act and that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court set aside the eviction proceedings.
Headnote
A) Public Premises Act - Pre-nationalisation Tenants - Jurisdiction - Pre-nationalisation tenants cannot be treated as unauthorised occupants under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - The court held that the petitioners, being pre-nationalisation tenants, cannot be proceeded against under the said Act in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Paras 2-3).
B) Bias - Estate Officer - Reasonable Apprehension - The Estate Officer who recommended eviction and proposed a line of action is biased - The court held that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias as the Estate Officer had himself recommended the action of eviction against the petitioners (Para 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether pre-nationalisation tenants can be proceeded against under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and whether the Estate Officer who recommended eviction is biased.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petitions, setting aside the eviction proceedings against the petitioners.
Law Points
- Pre-nationalisation tenants are not unauthorised occupants under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act
- 1971
- Bias of Estate Officer
- Jurisdiction of Estate Officer
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (02) 188
Writ Petition No. 11606 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 11609 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 11610 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 11611 of 2014
Mr. V. Y. Sanglikar for Petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Shethia for Respondent No. 1
Gajanan Shivram Lele, Suresh Vasudeo Pai, Prachi Narayan Kale, Anjali Ganpat Purat
Dena Bank, E. Rajshekhar, Estate Officer
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash eviction proceedings on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and bias of the Estate Officer.
Filing Reason
Petitioners, being pre-nationalisation tenants, were being proceeded against under the Public Premises Act despite the Supreme Court's decision that such tenants cannot be treated as unauthorised occupants.
Issues
Whether pre-nationalisation tenants can be proceeded against under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Whether the Estate Officer who recommended eviction is biased.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they are pre-nationalisation tenants and cannot be treated as unauthorised occupants under the Act, relying on Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Petitioners argued that the Estate Officer had himself recommended eviction, showing bias.
Ratio Decidendi
Pre-nationalisation tenants cannot be treated as unauthorised occupants under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and an Estate Officer who has recommended eviction is biased and cannot adjudicate.
Judgment Excerpts
That the petitioners being pre-nationalisation tenants / occupants of the suit premises, cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of the said Act in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & its Estate Officer
That Mr. E. Rajshekhar, the Estate Manager had himself recommended the action of eviction against the petitioners and even proposed a line of action to secure the same. Therefore, there is a reasonable apprehension that Mr. E. Rajshekhar is biased.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed applications before the Estate Officer urging want of jurisdiction. The Estate Officer did not decide the applications, prompting the petitioners to file writ petitions before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971:
