Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Eviction Order Under Public Premises Act — LIC Held Not a 'Public Premises' as It Ceased to Be Government Company After 2013 Amendment. The court held that the Estate Officer lacked jurisdiction to order eviction of a tenant from LIC premises because LIC was not a Government company under Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act, 1971.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, M/s Indian Coffee Workers Cooperative Society Limited, a society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, was a tenant in premises owned by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) since 1 June 1958. The LIC issued a notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, terminating the tenancy and demanding possession. The Estate Officer (respondent no. 1) ordered eviction in Cases No. 314/2010 and 314A/2010. The petitioner appealed to the District Judge, Nagpur, who dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was allowed on the ground of inadequate opportunity of hearing and remanded the matter to the Estate Officer for fresh decision. After remand, the Estate Officer again passed an eviction order. The petitioner challenged this order by filing the present writ petition. The main legal issue was whether the LIC premises could be considered 'public premises' under the Public Premises Act, given that LIC had ceased to be a Government company after the amendment of Section 2(e) of the Act in 2013. The petitioner argued that LIC was no longer a Government company as its shareholding pattern had changed, and therefore the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction. The respondents contended that LIC was a Government company under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the premises were public premises. The court analyzed the definition of 'public premises' under Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act, which includes premises belonging to a Government company. The court noted that after the amendment by Act 7 of 2013, the definition was restricted to companies in which not less than 51% of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government or a State Government. The court found that LIC was not a Government company as its shareholding was not predominantly held by the government. Therefore, the premises did not fall within the definition of 'public premises', and the Estate Officer lacked jurisdiction. The court set aside the eviction order and allowed the writ petition.

Headnote

A) Public Premises Act - Definition of Public Premises - Section 2(e) - Government Company - The definition of 'public premises' under Section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, includes premises belonging to a Government company. However, after the amendment of Section 2(e) by Act 7 of 2013, the definition was restricted to companies in which not less than 51% of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government or a State Government. The Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) ceased to be a Government company after the amendment, as its shareholding pattern changed. Therefore, the premises belonging to LIC are not 'public premises' under the Act, and the Estate Officer lacks jurisdiction to order eviction. (Paras 1-10)

B) Eviction - Jurisdiction of Estate Officer - Section 5 of Public Premises Act - The Estate Officer's jurisdiction to order eviction under the Public Premises Act is dependent on the premises being 'public premises'. If the premises do not fall within the definition, the proceedings before the Estate Officer are without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The court held that the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer and confirmed by the appellate authority was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. (Paras 11-15)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) is a 'public premises' under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, after the amendment of Section 2(e) in 2013, and whether the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to order eviction.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition allowed. The eviction order passed by the Estate Officer and confirmed by the appellate authority is set aside. The premises are not 'public premises' under the Public Premises Act, and the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction.

Law Points

  • Public Premises Act
  • 1971
  • Section 2(e)
  • Government company
  • LIC
  • Eviction
  • Jurisdiction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (07) 144

Writ Petition No. 5051 of 2014

2018-07-31

S. B. Shukre, J

Shri S.N. Bhattad, Shri M.R. Pillai for petitioner; Ms. Smita Deshpande for Respondent No.1; Shri P.N. Kothari for Respondent No.2

M/s Indian Coffee Workers Cooperative Society Limited

The Estate Officer, Western Zone, for the Life Insurance Corporation of India & Life Insurance Corporation of India

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging eviction order passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of eviction order and declaration that the premises are not public premises.

Filing Reason

Petitioner challenged the eviction order on the ground that the Estate Officer lacked jurisdiction as LIC was not a Government company.

Previous Decisions

Earlier writ petition was allowed and matter remanded; after remand, Estate Officer again passed eviction order.

Issues

Whether the premises belonging to LIC are 'public premises' under Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act, 1971? Whether the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to order eviction?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that LIC ceased to be a Government company after amendment of Section 2(e) in 2013, hence premises not public premises. Respondents argued that LIC is a Government company under Section 617 of Companies Act, 1956, and premises are public premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The definition of 'public premises' under Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act, 1971, includes premises belonging to a Government company. After the amendment by Act 7 of 2013, a Government company is one in which not less than 51% of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government or a State Government. LIC is not a Government company as its shareholding pattern does not meet this requirement. Therefore, the premises belonging to LIC are not 'public premises', and the Estate Officer lacks jurisdiction to order eviction.

Judgment Excerpts

Petitioner is a Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioner was inducted as tenant in the suit premises with effect from 1st June 1958. The definition of 'public premises' under Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act includes premises belonging to a Government company.

Procedural History

The petitioner was tenant in LIC premises since 1958. LIC issued notice under Public Premises Act terminating tenancy. Estate Officer ordered eviction in Cases No. 314/2010 and 314A/2010. Appeal to District Judge dismissed. First writ petition allowed and remanded. After remand, Estate Officer again passed eviction order. Present writ petition filed challenging that order.

Acts & Sections

  • Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971: Section 2(e), Section 5
  • Companies Act, 1956: Section 617
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Against Rejection of KVSS Declaration — Post-Manufacturing Expenses Dispute. The court held that an appeal is pending until the order is communicated to the party, and thus the declaration under Section 95 of ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Sets Aside Review Order Recalling Judgment Due to Non-Filing of Vakalatnama. Service of Notice Held Complete and Arguments Not Collusive, Hence Recall Unjustified Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.