Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Rani Sevakram (since deceased, represented by her legal heirs), filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging two orders: (1) the order dated 27.10.1993 passed by the Estate Officer (respondent no.3) in Case No. 8A of 1992 directing the petitioner and respondent no.2 (U.P. State Handlooms Corporation) to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 22,000 per month from 1.9.1983; and (2) the order dated 29.4.1994 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil Court (Appellate Authority) in Misc. Appeal No. 154 of 1993, which dismissed the appeal and modified the damages to Rs. 15,000 per month from 1.9.1983. The premises in question belonged to the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent no.1). The petitioner was originally a tenant, but her tenancy was terminated, and she continued in occupation, making her an unauthorised occupant. The Estate Officer, under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, ordered eviction and assessed damages. The Appellate Authority reduced the damages. The petitioner argued that she was not an unauthorised occupant and that the damages were excessive. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the concurrent findings of the authorities below were based on evidence and not perverse. The court noted that the damages were determined based on market rent, which was appropriate under Section 7 of the Act. The court found no reason to interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Public Premises Act - Unauthorised Occupation - Determination of Unauthorised Occupant - The petitioner was held to be an unauthorised occupant of the premises belonging to the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. after the termination of her tenancy. The Estate Officer and Appellate Authority correctly found that the petitioner had no right to continue in occupation after the lease was terminated. (Paras 2-3) B) Public Premises Act - Damages for Unauthorised Occupation - Section 7 - The quantum of damages under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is to be determined based on the market rent of the premises, not the contractual rent. The Appellate Authority reduced the damages from Rs. 22,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month, which was upheld by the High Court. (Paras 2-4) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 - The High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, will not interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The concurrent findings of the Estate Officer and Appellate Authority were based on evidence and were not interfered with. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant of the public premises and whether the damages awarded by the Estate Officer and Appellate Authority were correct.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Appellate Authority directing the petitioner to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per month from 1.9.1983.
Law Points
- Unauthorised occupant
- damages for unauthorised occupation
- Public Premises Act
- market rent
- eviction
- appeal against damages
- jurisdiction of Estate Officer
