Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to Shop No. 8, Ground Floor, Indian Mercantile Mansion, Mumbai, which was owned by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (Insurer), a subsidiary of the General Insurance Corporation of India. The original tenant, Rani Sevakram, had been in occupation since 1952. The Insurer claimed that after nationalization of the general insurance business, the building vested in it and constituted 'public premises' under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. In 1983, the Insurer issued a notice terminating the monthly tenancy on the ground of default in rent payment. Subsequently, it alleged that Sevakram had unlawfully sublet or granted license to the Uttar Pradesh State Handloom Corporation Limited, which had also carried out unauthorized structural changes, including construction of a mezzanine floor. In 1991, the Insurer filed an application before the Estate Officer seeking eviction and damages. The Estate Officer issued notices under Section 4(1) and 7(3) of the Act to Sevakram, the Corporation, and other occupants. Sevakram contested the application, denying the allegations and asserting that the proceedings were not maintainable due to Central Government guidelines and that the notice had lapsed. The Estate Officer, by order dated 27.10.1993, directed eviction and payment of damages. The Appellate Authority (Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay) confirmed the eviction on 29.4.1994. Aggrieved, the legal heirs of Sevakram and the Corporation filed two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging the orders. The High Court heard arguments on 24.01.2017 and delivered its judgment on 28.02.2017. The judgment considered the applicability of the Public Premises Act, the validity of the eviction order, and the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Estate Officer and Appellate Authority correctly applied the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; Whether the suit premises are public premises; Whether the tenancy was validly terminated and the occupant became unauthorised; Whether the alleged subletting and unauthorised construction justify eviction.
Law Points
- Public Premises Act overrides Bombay Rent Act
- Public premises includes premises of subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India
- Estate Officer has jurisdiction to evict unauthorised occupants
- Notice under Section 4(1) of PP Act must be issued
- Damages under Section 7(3) can be claimed for unauthorised occupation
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (02) 38
Writ Petition No. 2442 of 1994 and Writ Petition No. 1422 of 1996
Mr. E.A. Sasi for petitioners in WP 2442/1994 and respondents 3A-3C in WP 1422/1996; Mr. A.R. Pandey for petitioner in WP 1422/1996; Mr. V.Y. Sangalikar for respondent no.1 in both petitions
1. Mrs. Purva alias Urvashi Suresh Jahangiani and others (legal heirs of Mrs. Rani Sevakram) (Writ Petition No. 2442 of 1994); 2. Uttar Pradesh State Handloom Corporation Limited (Writ Petition No. 1422 of 1996)
1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2. S.C. Shah, Estate Officer; 3. Heirs of Rani Sevakram (in Writ Petition No. 1422 of 1996)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging eviction orders passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of orders dated 27.10.1993 passed by the Estate Officer in Case No.8 of 1992 and dated 29.4.1994 passed by the Appellate Authority in Misc. Civil Appeals No.155 and 153 of 1993.
Filing Reason
The original tenant, Rani Sevakram, was evicted by the Estate Officer on grounds of subletting and unauthorised construction, after termination of tenancy; the legal heirs and the sublessee Corporation challenged the eviction as illegal and without jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
Estate Officer ordered eviction and damages on 27.10.1993; Appellate Authority (Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil Court) confirmed the eviction on 29.4.1994.
Issues
Whether the suit premises are 'public premises' under the Public Premises Act?
Whether the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to order eviction?
Whether the termination of tenancy was valid?
Whether the alleged subletting and unauthorised changes rendered the occupants unauthorised?
Whether the orders of the Estate Officer and Appellate Authority suffer from any legal infirmity?
Submissions/Arguments
Sevakram's legal heirs contended that the application was not maintainable due to Central Government guidelines; denied receipt of termination notice; argued that the ground of default was abandoned and insurer estopped; argued that the notice had lapsed and rent was accepted; and claimed she was a commission agent, not a subletter.
The Oriental Insurance Co. contended that the suit premises are public premises; the tenancy was validly terminated; Sevakram had sublet and permitted unauthorised construction; and thus the occupants were unauthorised and liable to eviction and damages.
Judgment Excerpts
the premises belonging to, or taken on lease by or on behalf of the Insurer are 'public premises' within the meaning of Section 2(e)(2)(i) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971
the provisions of the Public Premises Act override the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
Sevakram had unauthorisedly and unlawfully sub-let or given on licence, the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred interest therein to M/s U.P.Handlooms Corporation for unlawful gain
Procedural History
1. Rani Sevakram was a monthly tenant in Shop No.8, Indian Mercantile Mansion, under Oriental Insurance. 2. Notice dated 19.7.1983 was issued terminating the tenancy for default. 3. Insurer filed RAE&R Suit No.1388/3955/85 in the Bombay Small Causes Court but later withdrew citing overriding effect of the Public Premises Act. 4. On 24.10.1989, Insurer issued separate notices to Sevakram and U.P. Handlooms Corporation regarding subletting and unauthorised mezzanine construction. 5. On 31.12.1991, Insurer applied to the Estate Officer for eviction and damages. 6. On 8.1.1992, Estate Officer issued notices under Sections 4(1) and 7(3) of the Public Premises Act in Case No.8 of 1992. 7. Sevakram and the Corporation filed written statements contesting the eviction. 8. By order dated 27.10.1993, the Estate Officer directed eviction and payment of damages. 9. Misc. Civil Appeals No.155 and 153 of 1993 were filed before the Bombay City Civil Court. 10. The Appellate Authority confirmed the eviction on 29.4.1994. 11. The legal heirs of Sevakram (WP 2442/1994) and the Corporation (WP 1422/1996) filed writ petitions in the Bombay High Court. 12. The High Court reserved judgment on 24.01.2017 and delivered it on 28.02.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971: 2(e)(2)(i), 4(1), 4(2)(b)(ii), 7(3)
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947:
- Companies Act, 1956: 3
- General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972:
