Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 28 February, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010034972022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1377/2022
USHMITA DEY AND ANR
D/O- LATE NIRMAL CH. DEY, R/O- 1ST FLOOR, TRIYAMBAK BUILDING,
H/O. 11, NABAGRAHA ROAD, GUWAHATI-781003, DIST. KAMRUP(M),
ASSAM
2: SUSMITA DEY DEKA
D/O- LATE NIRMAL CH. DEY
R/O- 1ST FLOOR
TRIYAMBAK BUILDING
H/O. 11
NABAGRAHA ROAD
GUWAHATI-781003
DIST. KAMRUP(M)
ASSA
VERSUS
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
A BODY CORPORATE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE LIFE INSURANCE
CORTPORATION ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS CENTRAL OFFICE AT
YOGAKHEMA, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI AND REP. BY ITS EASTERN
ZONAL OFFICE, HINDUSTAN BUILDING, 4, CHITTARANJAN AVENUE,
KOLKATA-700072.
2:THE MANAGER (ESTATE)
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
GUWAHATI DIVISIONAL OFFICE
JEEVAN PRAKASH BUILDING
S.S. ROAD
FANCY BAZAR
GUWAHATI-781001.
3:THE ESTATE OFFICER
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
Page No.# 2/4
EASTERN ZONAL OFFICE
HINDUSTAN BUIDLING 4
C.R. AVENUE
KOLKATA-70007
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N NATH
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
28/02/2022
Heard Mr. N Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners as franchisee of J.D. Institute of Fashion Technology were in possession of the
2nd and 3rd floor of the public premises, namely, Jivan Nivesh Building, Panbazar, Guwahati, District-
Kamrup (M) in the Ward No. 42 of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation standing on the plot of land at
Cadastral Survey No. 369 of Patta No. 140 of the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India. The
petitioners on 01.02.2018 handed over possession of the 3 rd floor and on 22.02.2018 handed over
possession of the 2nd floor of the said premises to the respondent LICI.
In the Reference Case No. EO/93/0321/Misc. Life Insurance Corporation of India (applicant)
Vs. M/s. J.D. Institute of Fashion Technology, Guwahati (the opposite party), the Estate Officer
proceeded against the petitioners under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 by issuing notice under Section 4 of the said 1971 Act for
recovery of arrear rent along with applicable taxes and interest thereon for the said premises as well
as damages w.e.f. 01.05.2017 till the date of handing over possession of the respective floors of the
said premises to the LICI.
Though the petitioners submitted application before the Estate Officers seeking time for re-
fixing the matter and to submit reply to the show cause but they did not file any reply nor appeared in
the matter. As such, the said proceeding proceeded ex-parte against the petitioners and the Estate
Officer by its order dated 25.01.2022 passed in said Reference Case No. EO/93/0321/Misc. delivered
an order for recovery of arrears along with interest from the petitioners under Sections 7(2) and 7
Page No.# 3/4
(2A) of the said 1971 Act in Form-E prescribed under the said Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The said Estate Officer on 25.01.2022 in the said proceeding also
passed an order for recovery of damages from the petitioners under Section 7(2) of the said 1971 Act
in Form-G prescribed under the said 1971 Act and Rules pertaining to the schedule of the land, more
particularly, described in the said order over which the said Jivan Nivesh Building, Panbazar, Guwahati
at Ward No. 42 is standing including its 2nd and 3rd floors of which the petitioners were tenants.
It is contended by the petitioners that the said proceeding under the said 1971 Act being
proceeded at Kolkata, West Bengal, whereas the premises in question being at Guwahati, Assam, the
said proceeding being not maintainable, therefore, the notice issued under Section 4 of the said 1971
Act by the Estate Officer itself being bad in law, therefore, the impugned order dated 25.01.2022
passed by the said Estate Officer in Reference Case No. EO/93/0321/Misc., noted above, needs to be
set aside and quashed.
In this regard, Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed the provisions of
Section 3(b) of the said 1971 Act, which stipulates as follows:-
"(b) The Central Government may, by Notification in the Office Gazette define the local limits
within which, or the categories of public premises in respect of which, the Estate Officers shall
exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on Estate Officers by or under
this Act."
Though, there is a provision of appeal against the order of the Estate Officer as provided
under the provisions of 1971 Act, Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners, on being enquired
submitted that since the notice under Section 4(1) of the said 1971 Act issued by the concerned
Estate Officer itself is not maintainable, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.
Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Savatram Rampratap Mills Vs. Radhey-shyam, s/o. Lakshmi Narayan Goenka (D)
Thr. Lrs. reported in (2018) 9 SCC 154 = AIR 2018 SC 3916 and the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
said 1971 Act submitted that the Estate Officer has to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to the public
premises falling in the local limits specified in the Notification.
In the present case, the Estate Officer issued notice to the petitioners, where the schedule of
the notice clearly specified that the land in question is at Panbazar, Guwahati, District-Kamrup (Metro),
Page No.# 4/4
Assam, whereas the venue of the said proceeding was at the Eastern Zonal Office, Hindusthan
Buildings, 4, Chitta Ranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072, West Bengal and as such, the Estate Officer could
not have proceeded with the matter as the relevant premises is at Panbazar, Guwahati in the District
of Kamrup(M), Assam. As such, petitioners stated that any such proceeding by the Estate Officer
should have proceeded at Guwahati considering the fact that the premises in question is in the local
limits of Guwahati city, Assam.
Issue notice, returnable by 30.03.2022.
Petitioners shall take steps for service of notice on the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by registered
post with A/D on or before 02.03.2022, providing their proper and correct addresses with requisite
postal stamps.
Subject to taking steps on the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, as directed above, the operation of the
impugned order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Estate Officer respondent No. 3 in said Reference
Case No. EO/93/0321/Misc. [Life Insurance Corporation of India (applicant) Vs. M/s. J.D. Institute of
Fashion Technology, Guwahati (the opposite party)] shall remain suspended till the returnable date
(i.e., 30.03.2022).
List accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
