National Textile Corporation ... vs Punjab National Bank & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3925 Del

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                           Judgment reserved on: 28.07.2010
                           Judgment delivered on: 25.08.2010

                W.P. (C ) No. 18504/2006


National Textile Corporation (DP&R) Ltd.
                                       ......Petitioner

                   Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi,Sr. Advocate
                            With Mr. Sanjay Ghosh and
                            Mr. Nikhil Bhalla, Advocates

                                Vs.

Punjab National Bank & Ors.               ......Respondent

                   Through: Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Advocate
                            with Mr. Y.P. Chandana, Ms.
                            Yashodhara Anand and Mr. Pankul
                            Nagpal, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may        Yes
   be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?               Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported          Yes
   in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

*

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to set

aside the order dated 23.09.2006 passed by the court of

Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the eviction order

passed by the Estate Officer against the petitioner has

been upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the

present petition are that the petitioner was a tenant of the

respondent in respect of the property bearing Shop No.11,

Punjab National Bank Building, Arya Samaj Road, Karol

Bagh, New Delhi. The petitioner was a habitual defaulter in

payment of rent of the said premises and hence a legal

notice dated 3.6.87 was served upon the petitioner

terminating the said tenancy with effect from 30.6.87.

Thereafter the Estate Officer served a show cause notice

dated 23.7.1987 on the petitioner and an eviction order

dated 26.7.1991 was passed by the learned Estate Officer

against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved with the said

order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was

dismissed by the learned ADJ vide order dated 23.9.2006

thereby upholding the order of the Estate Officer. Feeling

aggrieved with the abovesaid orders the petitioner has

preferred the present petition.

3. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Ld. Senior Advocate appearing

for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a

statutory tenant under the Provisions of the Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1958 and therefore the provisions of the

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act,

1971 could not have been invoked against the petitioner

to seek eviction of the petitioner from the premises under

its occupation. Counsel for the petitioner further argued

that the eviction of the petitioner also could not have been

sought in view of the legal position settled by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court recommending settlement of disputes

between two Government Corporations by the High Power

Committee of Disputes. The contention of the counsel was

that without referring the said dispute to the High Power

Committee, the petitioner cannot be evicted from its lawful

occupation of the premises by resorting to the Public

Premises Act. Counsel for the petitioner also placed

reliance on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Urban

Development wherein it has been clearly stated that the

genuine tenants from Public Premises under the Control of

Public Sector Undertakings/Financial Institutions should not

be evicted while resorting to the provisions of the Public

Premises Act. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted

that the petitioner is a sick company and therefore cannot

be burdened to pay the arrears of the damages as claimed

by the respondent.

4. Refuting the said arguments of the counsel for

the petitioner, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Ld. Senior Advocate

appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner

is an unauthorized occupant of the premises under its

occupation, due to the non-payment of huge arrears of

rent/damages. Counsel for the respondent further

submitted that the petitioner, despite grant of numerous

opportunities, failed to contest the proceedings before the

Estate Officer while the respondents fully established its

case based on oral and documentary evidence placed on

record. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that

the petitioner has already been successful in enormously

delaying the matter as proceedings before the Estate

Officer were initiated in the year 1987 which led the Estate

Officer to pass an eviction order on 26.07.1991 and it is

almost for more than a period of 20 years that the

petitioner continued to remain in illegal occupation of the

said premises. Counsel for the respondent further

submitted that the Apex Court in Steel Authority of

India Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1997)

5 SCC 511 has taken a view that the matter like eviction

of public premises cannot be referred to be resolved by

the High Power Committee and therefore the plea taken by

the petitioner in this regard is an attempt to further delay

the proceedings. So far the guidelines issued by the

Ministry of Urban Development for not resorting to the

Public Premises Act to evict the genuine tenants like public

corporations are concerned, the counsel for the

respondent placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s L. D.

Nayyar & Sons Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. LPA

No. 350/2008 wherein the Division Bench took a view

that the administrative guidelines cannot supplant the

power to invoke a speedy remedy to evict tenants whose

arrangements ended almost two decades ago.

 5.          I   have       heard   counsel    for    the   parties         at

considerable      length     and   have      given   my    thoughtful

consideration to the facts of the case.

6. As per the Preamble to the Act, the Public

Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

is designed to provide for the eviction of unauthorized

occupants from the public premises and for certain

incidental matters. The scheme of the Act indicates that

the central theme of the legislation is to provide speedy

procedure in order to evict persons in unauthorized

occupation of public premises. It provides for a summary

procedure for eviction of those persons who have no

authority in law to remain in possession of the land. They

may be squatters, persons having no rights whatsoever,

etc. The whole essence of the Act is thus to provide a

quick resort for eviction of unauthorized occupants.

7. Adverting to the case at hand, eviction

proceedings against the petitioner were initiated by the

respondent Bank by means of a legal notice dated

3.8.1987. The reasons given in the said termination notice

were that the premises were bonafidely required by the

respondent bank and also because the petitioner was a

habitual defaulter in the payment of the rent in respect of

the said premises. It is not in dispute that the said

premises are owned by the respondent bank being Public

Premises within the meaning of Section 2 (e) (2) (ii) of the

said Act. As per Section 2 (g) of the Public Premises Act,

unauthorized occupation "in relation to any public

premises" means occupation by any person of the public

premises without authority for such occupation and

includes the continuation in occupation by any person of

the Public Premises after the authority (whether by way of

grant or by any other mode of transfer) under which he

was allowed to occupy the said premises has expired or

has been determined for any reason whatsoever. It is also

a settled legal position that the onus to prove the fact that

the occupant is not in unauthorized occupation of the

premises is on the occupier. It would be worthwhile to

refer to the judgment of this court in the case of Union of

India vs. S.M Aggarwal & 31 Ors. 1995(33) DRJ (DB)

371 where it was held that:

"As noted above, in spite of various opportunities granted to the shopkeepers by the Estate Officer they failed to file written statement and in fact the entire proceedings show that their whole attempt was to delay the proceedings. There was no question of any departmental official being examined beforehand. What section 4 of the Act required was that if the Estate Officer was of the opinion that any person was in unauthorised occupation of any public premises he is to give him a notice to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be made. It is, thereforee, for the occupant to show that he is not in unauthorised occupation of public premises. In spite of various opportunities no record of any nature was produced by the shopkeepers and they did not even file any answer to the show cause notice. If it was a case tried in a civil court then the judge would have straightaway struck out the defense of the shopkeepers for having failed to file written statement in spite of adjournments having been granted for the purpose. To be over-zealous to do justice is one thing, but that should not in any way cause injustice to the other party. A public authority as much requires justice to be done to it as any private individual. Perusal of the record by the learned Additional District Judge to come to the conclusion that

the Estate Officer decided the cases ex parte is superficial and in fact contrary to the record. No fault has been found in the notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act. No cause thereto has been shown by the shopkeepers in spite of various opportunities having been granted to them for the purpose. That being so, there was no question of recording any evidence of the department or for production of the files of earlier cases without there being any answer to show cause notice by the shopkeepers on record."

8. The petitioner has failed to satisfy this court as

to how and in what manner the occupation of the

petitioner in the demised premises is authorized

occupation. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that

its tenancy was terminated through a legal and valid

notice served by the respondent vide notice dated

3.8.1987. The petitioner has also not disputed the fact that

it did not contest the proceedings before the Estate Officer

which ultimately resulted in the passing of an eviction

order against it. The plea of the counsel for the petitioner

that the court should have referred the dispute between

the two Government Corporations to the High Power

Committee of Disputes does not hold good in view of the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Steel

Authority of India (Supra). It would be pertinent to

reproduce the relevant para of the said judgment here:

"The petitioner has sought for such a reference and contends the High-power Committee should have been constituted and decided the matter. We find no force in the contention.

3. The object of issuing direction in those matters was to decide the fiscal disputes in case of major policy matters to save the public money and courts valuable time, and disputes could amicably be settled between the Public Sector Undertaking and the Government of India or the State Governments. The intention was not to resolve the disputes like eviction of a Company or Public Undertaking under Public Premises (Unauthorised Occupants) Act; such petty disputes are not directed to be dealt with by the High level officers whose otherwise duty and time is of very important nature. Under these circumstances, the High Court has not committed any error warranting interference."

So far the contention of the counsel for the petitioner with

regard to the guidelines of the Ministry of Urban

Development is concerned, the Hon'ble Division Bench of

this Court in the case of M/s L.D. Nayyar & Sons

(supra) has taken a view that the administrative

guidelines cannot be fetter on statutory powers conferred

under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized

Occupants) Act. The relevant para of the said judgment is

referred as under:-

"2. The principal argument of the counsel for the appellant is based on the guidelines issued by the Central Government in 1992 and the subsequent clarifications issued, leading upto 2002 guidelines. In particular, reliance was placed on the following portion of theguidelines:

"Resorting to PP Act to vacate authorized tenants merely to secure possession of the premises to accommodate the PSU's employees, or for commercial redevelopment or to open a branch cannot be totally against the spirit of the guidelines for protecting interests of genuine authorized tenants...."

3. We are afraid the argument is misconceived. It is well settled that the administrative guidelines cannot supplant the power to invoke a speedy remedy to evict tenants whose arrangements ended almost two decades ago. The guidelines cannot be fetter on statutory powers conferred under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. In Uttam Prakash Bansal v. Life Insurance Corporation of India 100 (2002) DLT 97 this Court has held that a tenancy terminated earlier to issuance of the guidelines could not be tested on the basis of its terms and that in any case those guidelines could not supplant statutory power under the Act."

9. The petitioner has already been successful in

delaying the matter for more than 20 years and being a

Government Corporation it was expected of the petitioner

to have followed the mandate of the law in handing over

the possession of the said premises after it was declared

as an unauthorized occupant of the same instead of

delaying the matter for such a long time. A tardy approach

as that of the petitioner defeats the purpose for which the

Public Premises Act was enacted.

10. Hence, in the light of the above, there is no

merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed

with a cost of Rs.25, 000/-.

August    25, 2010                 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J