public premises act
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
1/73
THE PUBLIC PREMISES(Eviction of unauthorized occupants)
ACT, 1971
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
2/73
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
3/73
After retirement/ expiry of the term is tobe vacated and surrendered to the Govt.
This facility as being misused by themeither not vacating /over staying in theresidential accommodation & not
surrendering it to the Govt. To evict such unauthorized occupants the
only course open was to file civil suitswhich was quite dilatory
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
4/73
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
5/73
This Act came in to existence in the year 1958
The public premises Act 1971 preceded by twoenactments Govt. Premises (Eviction)Act,1950 + Public Premises (eviction ofunauthorized occupants) Act, 1958 which was
declared unconstitutional by different High-courts.
This led to the enactment of the public premisesAct,1971.
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
6/73
Object of Legislation in enlarging the definitionof public premises in Sec.2(e) of the Act
Evicting unauthorized occupants not only fromthe premises belonging to Central Govt. but alsofrom premises of companies, corporations andstatutory bodies in which the Central Govt. has a
substantial interest Public premises includes both residential and
commercial purpose Procedure Summary procedure
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
7/73
DEFINITIONS
Premises :- means any land or anybuilding or part of a building andincludes-
(i) the garden, grounds and out houses, ifany appertaining to such building or part
of a building, andAny fittings a fixed to such building or part
of a building for the more beneficialenjoyment thereof {S.2}
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
8/73
public premises" means- (1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or
requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the CentralGovernment, and includes any such premises whichhave been placed by that Government,
whether before or after the commencement of the
Public Premises (Eviction or Unauthorized Occupants)Amendments Act, 1980, under the control of theSecretariat of either House of Parliament for providingresidential accommodation to any member of the staffof that Secretariat;
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
9/73
(2) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or onbehalf of,-
(i) any company as defined in section 3 of the CompaniesAct, 1956, in which not less than fifty-one per cent, of thepaid up share capital is held by the Central Governmentor any company which is a subsidiary (within the
meaning of that Act ) of the first-mentioned company. (ii) any corporation (not being a company as company as
defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 or a local
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
10/73
authority) established by or under a Central Actand owned or controlled by the CentralGovernment.
(iii) any University established or incorporatedby any Central Act.
(iv) any Instituted incorporated by the Institutesof Technology Act, 1961.
(v) any Board of Trustees constituted under theMajor Port Trusts Act, 1963.
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
11/73
(vi) the Bhakra Management Board constitutedunder section 79 of the Punjab Reorganization Act,
1966 and that Board as and when re-named as theBhakra- Beas Management Board under sub-section(6) of section 80 of that Act
(vii) any State Government or the Government of
any Union Territory situated in the National CapitalTerritory of Delhi or in any other Union Territory.
(viii) any Cantonment Board constituted under theCantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924); and
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
12/73
(3) in relation to the [National Capital Territory ofDelhi],-
(i) any premises belonging to the Municipal Corporationof Delhi, or any municipal committee or notified areacommittee,
(ii) any premises belonging to the Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, whether such premises are in the possession
of, or leased out by, the said Authority; (iii) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or
requisitioned by, or on behalf of any State Governmentor the Government of any Union Territory
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
13/73
"temporary occupation ", in relation toany public premises, means occupation byany person on the basis of an order ofallotment made under the authority of theCentral Government, a State Government,
the Government of a Union Territory or aStatutory Authority for a total period(including the extended period, if any)which is less than thirty days{s.2(fb)}
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
14/73
"unauthorized occupation", in relation toany public premises, means the occupation by
any person of the public premises withoutauthority for such occupation, and includes thecontinuance in occupation by any person of thepublic premises after the authority (whether by
way of grant or any other mode of transfer)under which he was allowed to occupy thepremises has expired or has been determined forany reason whatsoever.{s.2(g)}
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
15/73
CASE-LAW
Whether the Nationalized banks
premises comes under thepurview of public premises ornot?
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
16/73
Ref. case law:
Ashoka Marketing Ltd
vs.
Punjab National Bank
A I R 1991 S C 855
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
17/73
Tenant of public premises- Tenancy terminatedor expires under Public Premises Act,1971-
whether entitled to invoke the statutoryprotection of Rent Control Act,1958?
Public Premises- whether includes premises
belonging to Nationalized Banks Tenant insuch premises- tenancy expires or is terminated whether can invoke protection of Delhi RentControl Act
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
18/73
Facts of the case: Appellants- petitioners- tenants -in the premises
belongs to the Res/banks
Their tenancy had expired/ had been terminatedby the respondents Eviction proceedings initiated against them u/ P
P Act,1971
Writ pet. u/A.226- by Appellants-.-challenging the order of eviction- result-dismissed
Appeal by writ petitioners.u/A.32 Supreme
Court
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
19/73
Supreme Courts verdict: Public premises Act & Rent control Act have
been enacted by the same legislature,parliament, in exercise of the legislative powersin respect of the matters enumerated at theconcurrent list.
This Act is also special statute relating toeviction of ..from public premises
The scope and object of this Act quite differentfrom Rent Control Act
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
20/73
This PP Act operates in a very limited field applies only to a limited nature of premisesbelonging only to a particular sets of
individuals- particular set of juristic persons likecompanies/ corporations/ central Govt.
R.C Act is much wider application it applies toall private premises
Object- afford special protection to all thetenants except sec.2 of public premises Act.
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
21/73
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
22/73
Occupation by tenant who is holding over such public premisesis an unauthorized occupant
Therefore, the Nationalized Bank premises comes under thepurview of public premises under the Act
In the result the appeals and the writ petition are dismissed.
The appellants are directed to handover the possession of theportion of the premises in their occupation to the RespondentBank within one month.
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
23/73
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
24/73
- exercises his powers within his local limits
In case of appointment of Estate Officer belongsto the officer of secretariat of Rajya Sabha & LokSabha shall be appointed with the priorpermission/consultation of Chairman of Rajya
Sabha & Speaker of .
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
25/73
Officer of Statutory Authority shall only beappointed as an Estate Officer in respect of the
public premises controlled by that authorityonly.
Procedure: {s.4}
1. Issue notice in writing concerned to showcause why an order of eviction should be made
2. The notice shall
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
26/73
(a) specify the grounds on which the order ofeviction is proposed to be made
(b) require all persons who are in occupation/claim interest in public premises
(i) to show cause- against the proposed order
date specified in the notice not earlier thanseven days
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
27/73
(ii) to appear before the Estate Officer forpersonal hearing- along with the evidence which
they intend to produce in support of the causeshown
Notice is mandatory & should contain
particulars of the premises clearly
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
28/73
Case-law
Bhagath singh vs DDA
1988(1) RCR 671 (Delhi) In this case court held that the order of eviction
is liable to be set aside if the notice for evictiondid not set out the particulars of the premisesclearly.
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
29/73
S.5: Eviction of unauthorized occupants afterpersonal hearing if the Estate Officer is
satisfied that public premises are inunauthorized occupation,
The Estate Officer may make an order of eviction
For reasons to be recorded there in Directing that the public premises shall be
vacated
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
30/73
Such date specified in order
2. if any person refuses or fails to comply withthe order of eviction within specified time eviction officer take the possession- may useforce in case of necessary
Power to remove unauthorized constructions{S.5A}
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
31/73
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
32/73
In case of movables / cattles.the estate officer may,by order, remove or cause to be removed without
notice, such structure, fixture, goods, cattle or otheranimal, as the case may be, from the public premisesand recover the cost of such removal from suchperson as all arrears of land revenue.
Order of demolition of unauthorized constructions. -as per procedure laid down in S. 5B
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
33/73
Power to seal unauthorized construction. (S.5)-
It shall be lawful for the estate officer, at any time,
before or after making an order of demolition undersection 5B, to make an order directing the sealing ofsuch erection or work or of the public premises in
which such erection or work has been commenced oris being carried on or has been completed in such
manner as may be prescribed, for the purpose ofcarrying out the provisions of the Act, or forpreventing any dispute as to the nature and extent ofsuch erection or work.
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
34/73
2) Where any erection or work or any premises inwhich any erection or work is being carried on has,
or have been sealed, the estate officer may, for thepurpose of demolishing such erection or work inaccordance with the provisions of this Act, ordersuch seal to be removed.
(3) No person shall remove such seal except- (a) Under an order made by the estate officer under
sub-section (2); or (b) Under an order of the appellate officer made in
an appeal under this Act
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
35/73
Disposal of property left on public premises byunauthorized occupants [s.6]
persons have been evicted from any public premises -u/Sec.5.
building or other work has been demolished - u/ Sec.5B
the estate officer may, after giving fourteen days noticeto the persons from whom possession of the publicpremises has been taken and after publishing the notice
in at least one newspaper having circulation in thelocality,
remove or cause to be removed or dispose of by publicauction any property remaining on Such premises.
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
36/73
(1A) Where any goods, materials cattle or other animal havebeen removed from any public premises under Section 5A, theestate officer may, after giving fourteen days notice to thepersons owning such goods, materials, cattle or other animal andafter publishing the notice in at least one newspaper havingcirculation in the locality, dispose of, by public auction, such
goods. materials, cattle or other animal.
(1B) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) and(IA), the giving or publication of any notice referred to thereinshall not be necessary in respect of any property which is subjectto speedy and natural decay, and the estate officer may, after
recording such evidence as he may think fit, cause such propertyto be sold or otherwise disposed of in such manner as he maythink fit
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
37/73
(2) Where any property is sold under subsection(1), the sale proceeds thereof shall, after
deducting the expenses of the sale and theamount, if any, due to the Central Governmentof the on account of arrears of rent or damagesor costs, be paid to such person or persons asmay appear to the estate officer to be entitled tothe same:
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
38/73
Provided that where the estate officer is unableto decide as to the person or persons to whom
the balance of the amount is payable or as to theapportionment of the same, he may refer suchdispute to the civil court of competentjurisdiction and the decision of the court thereonshall be final.
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
39/73
(2A)costs means
the cost of removal recoverable under Section 5A
and
the cost of demolition recoverable under Section5B.
S.7: Power to require payment of rent / damagesin respect of public premises
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
40/73
Arrears of rent payable by the unauthorizedoccupant - public premises - require that person
to pay the same within such time and in suchinstallments as may be specified in the order.
assess the damages on account of the use and
occupation of such premises and may, by order,require that person to pay the damages withinsuch time and in such installments as may hespecified in the order.
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
41/73
Whether the Govt. is entitled to claim thedamages without proving ownership ?
Ref. case-law
Union of India vs. I.S. Goyal & Co1991 Rajadhani Law Reporter(note)54
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
42/73
The court held that if the Govt. fails
to prove its ownership of allegedpremises from which it has soughteviction of the unauthorized
occupant, then it cannot claimdamages.
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
43/73
S. 8: Power of estate officers. -
An estate officer shall, for thepurpose of holding any inquiry underthis Act, have the same powers as are
vested in a civil court under the C.P.C,when trying a suit in respect of thefollowing matters
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
44/73
(a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance ofany person and examining him on oath;
(b) Requiring the discovery and production ofdocuments;
(c) Any other matter, which may be prescribed.
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
45/73
Appeals:
lies before - an appellate officer who shall be the
district judge of the district in which the publicpremises are situate or such other judicial officerin that district of not less than ten yearsstanding as the district judge may designate inthis behalf [S.9].
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
46/73
(2) An appeal under subsection (1) shall bepreferred
Order u/s.5 within 12 days-from the date ofpublication of order
Order u/s.5B & 7 within 12 days- from the date
on which the order is communicated Order u/s.5c - within 12 days-from the date oforder
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
47/73
Appellate officer may grant stay the order ofeviction
Every appeal under this section shall be disposed ofby the appellate officer as expeditiously as possible
Case: Indian Bank vs Blaze & central (pvt) ltd.
1986(1) RLR 560 Karnataka The court held that Dist. Judge is vestedpower of stay the order of eviction passed
by the Estate Officer.
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
48/73
According to Sec.10: Every ordermade by an Estate Officer orAppellate Officer u/this Act shall befinal and shall not be called in anyoriginal suit.
E.P & no injunction shall be grantedby any court.
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
49/73
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
50/73
The legal heirs/ legal representatives are liableto pay the arrears of rent/ damages/ .
Acc to Sec. 14 the Estate Officer may issue acertificate for the amount due to the collector in
case of failure of expenses of demolition,damages, rent & costs by any person
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
51/73
Ref case lawS.V. Motwani vs Collector of Delhi
AIR 1974 Del 56
The court held that for realization of the
amounts due an order u/s.14 is the conditionprecedent. In the absence of such an order forrecovery the collector cannot proceed to recoverthe amount as arrears of land revenue
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
52/73
S.15: Bar of Jurisdiction:
No court shall have jurisdiction toproceed/ entertain the procedureunder this act
S.16: Protection of action taken ingood faith
S.17:Delegation of Powers- S18. Power to make rules
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
53/73
CASE-LAW
Suhash H Pophale vs OrientalInsurance Co.Ltd & another
Dt of order 11/02/2014
AIR SCW 1171
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
54/73
Whether the appellant was lawful tenant?If yes under what act
Under what provision appeal lies before the citycivil court?
What was the order of appellate officerUnder which section appeal lies before the High
CourtCan he be called as an unauthorized occupantWhat are the pro. Of 4 & 7 of the pp actWhat was the ratio laid down in Ashoka
Marketing caseWhether the H.C followed that ratio
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
55/73
Facts of the case Appellant was tenant of the MIC
MIC was merged with OIC with effect from 1-1-
1974 MIC Management was taken over by the
central government in 1971
Appellant obtained license from the originaltenant in 1972
MIC had been informed about the same
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
56/73
facts
Notices served under Section 4 and 7 ofthe Public Premises Act, 1971
Eviction order passed against him 1993
City Civil Court set aside the order ofdamages/ affirmed the order of
Bombay H.C. Dismissed the.. Withcosts
next- SLP. - supreme court
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
57/73
Arguments The principal contention / occupationwas protected under - the Bombay RentAct
OIC acquiring the title over the propertyfrom 1.1.1974.
could not be evicted by invoking theprovisions of Public Premises Act/ as anunauthorized occupant / under .. act
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
58/73
Issues The principal issue - relationship between
the erstwhile insurance company(landlord) & the appellant (occupant)-governed under the Bombay Rent Act
the status of the occupant was that of a
deemed tenant under the ..When a tenant protected as a tenant/
deemed tenantunder the State Act
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
59/73
Supreme court judgment Writ Petition allowed / eviction order set
aside.
The proceedings -.. under the Public PremisesAct are held to be bad in law
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
60/73
This question arises in the context of the eviction
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
61/73
The eviction order has been upheld by the BombayHigh Court in its impugned judgment dated 7.6.2010,rejecting the Writ Petition No.2473 of 1996 filed by
the appellant herein.
This question arises in the context of the evictionorder dated 28.5.1993 passed by the respondent No.2, Estate Officer of the first respondent, invoking the
provisions of the Public Premises Act with respect tothe premises occupied by the appellant since20.12.1972.
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
62/73
Facts
One Mr. Eric Voller was a tenant of the Indian Mercantile InsuranceCompany Ltd., the predecessor in title of the first respondent inrespect of the premises being Flat No.3, Second Floor, Indian
Mercantile Mansion Wodehouse Road, Opposite Regal Cinema,Colaba, Mumbai
Of This Mr. Voller executed a leave and licence agreement in respect of
these premises on 20.12.1972 in favour of the appellant initially for aperiod of two years, and put him in exclusive possession thereof. Mr.
Voller, thereafter migrated to Canada with his family.
Case The appellant is a practicing physician.The erstwhile
insurance company did not object to the appellant cominginto exclusive possession of the said premises.
In fact, it is the case of the appellant that when Mr. Voller sought the transfer of the
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
63/73
It is also the case of the appellant that on 14.3.1973, he wrote to the said GeneralManager seeking a permission for a change of user i.e. to use the premises for hisclinic. It is also his case that on 18.4.1973, the General Manager wrote back to him
that the erstwhile insurance company had no objection to the change of user,
provided the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai gave no objection.
The said erstwhile insurance company, thereafter, started accepting the rentdirectly from the appellant.
In fact, it is the case of the appellant that when Mr. Voller sought the transfer of thetenancy to the appellant, the General Manager of the said insurance company, by
his reply dated 16.1.1973, accepted the appellant as the tenant, though forresidential purposes only.
The erstwhile insurance company subsequently merged on 1.1.1974 into the firstd hi h i G C Th f h
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
64/73
Initially the suit came to be dismissed for default, but an application was made underOrder 9 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the said order. The application
was allowed, and the suit remained pending.
The first respondent, thereafter, addressed a notice dated 12.7.1980 to Mr. E. Vollerterminating his tenancy with respect to the said premises, and then filed a suit for
eviction against Mr. E. Voller and the appellant being R.A.E. Suit No.1176/3742 of 1981in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai, under the provisions of the then applicableBombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 ('Bombay Rent Act'
for short).
respondent company which is a Government Company. The management of theerstwhile insurance company had however been taken over by the Central Government
with effect from 13.5.1971, pending its nationalisation and that of other privateinsurance companies.
The appellant then sent a letter dated 22.11.1984 to the first
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
65/73
The first respondent followed it by preferring Case No.10 and10A of 1992 before the respondent No. 2 Estate Officer under
the Public Premises Act, to evict Mr. E. Voller and theappellant, and also to recover the damages.
pprespondent requesting them to regularize his tenancy as astatutory tenant. The first respondent, however, served the
appellant notices under Section 4 and 7 of the Public Premises
Act, 1971 to show cause as to why he should not be evictedfrom the concerned premises, and to pay damages as specifiedtherein for unauthorized occupation as claimed.
After initiating these proceedings the first respondent withdrew on 22 2 1994 the suit filed
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
66/73
The appellant filed a reply pointing out that he had been accepted as a tenant by thepredecessor of the first respondent by their earlier referred letter dated 16.1.1973. The first
respondent, however, responded on 5.1.1993 stating that they did not have any record of theerstwhile insurance company prior to 1975.
The first respondent alleged that the appellant had carried out structural changes. Theappellant denied the allegation. He claimed that he had effected some essential minorrepairs for maintenance of the premises since the first respondent was neglecting to attend
the same.
After initiating these proceedings, the first respondent withdrew on 22.2.1994 the suit filedin the Court of Small Causes. It is, however, relevant to note that in paragraph No. 4 of their
case before the Estate Officer, the first respondent specifically accepted that Mr. E. Vollerhad sublet or given on leave and licence basis or otherwise transferred his interest in the
said flat to the appellant in or about 1972, though without any authority from the
respondent No. 1.
ORDER OF ESTATE OFFICER
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
67/73
The second respondent thereafter passed an orderon 28.5.1993 directing eviction of Mr. E. Voller andthe appellant, and also for recovery of damages atthe rate of Rs.6750 per month from 1.9.1980. Beingaggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed anappeal before the City Civil Court at Mumbai underSection 9 of the Public Premises Act, which appealwas numbered as Misc. Appeal No.79/93.
O O S O C
(second respondent)
ORDER OF CITY CIVIL COURT
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
68/73
The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition bearingNo.2473/1996 before the High Court on 15.4.1996 to challenge
that part of the appellate order which upheld the order ofeviction. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, by the
impugned judgment and order dated 7.6.2010, with costs.
The City Civil Court set aside the order of damages, andremanded the matter to the second respondent to reconsiderthat aspect, but upheld the order of eviction by its judgment
and order dated 17.1.1996.
ORDER OF CITY CIVIL COURT
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
69/73
ARGUMENTS
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
70/73
The principal contention raised by the appellantright from the stage of the proceedings beforethe respondent No. 2, and even before the High
Court, was that his occupation of the concernedpremises was protected under the newly addedS 15A of the Bombay Rent Act with effect from1.2.1973, i.e. prior to the first respondent
acquiring the title over the property from1.1.1974. Therefore, he could not be evicted byinvoking the provisions of Public Premises Act,and by treating him as an unauthorized
occupant under that act
ARGUMENTS
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
71/73
As per the view taken by the High Court, this judgment rejects the contention that theprovisions of the Public Premises Act cannot be applied to the premises which fallwithin the ambit of a State Rent Control Act. The High Court held that the Public
Premises Act became applicable to the concerned premises from 13.5.1971 itself i.e. theappointed date under the General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971
wherefrom the management of the erstwhile insurance company was taken over by the
Central Government, and not from the date of merger i.e. 1.1.1974.
The impugned order of the High Court rejected the said submission holding that theprovisions of the Bombay Rent Act were not applicable to the premises concerned, and
the said premises were covered under the Public Premises Act. The High Courtprincipally relied upon the judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Ashoka
Marketing Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank reported in 1990 (4) SCC 406.
ORDER OF HIGH COURT
It is this judgment which is under challenge in the present appeal. Mr. Rohinton F.Nariman, learned senior counsel has appeared for the appellant and Mr. Harin P. Raval,
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
72/73
Like all other rent control enactments, this Act has been passed as a welfare measure,amongst other reasons to protect the tenants against unjustified increases above the
standard rent, to permit eviction of the tenants only when a case is made out under thespecified grounds, and to provide for a forum and procedure for adjudication of the
disputes between the landlords and the tenants. The legislature of Maharashtra thought
it necessary to protect the licensees also in certain situations
In the above scenario, the status of the occupant was that of a deemed tenant under theRent Act and based thereupon he could not be said be in unauthorised occupation andhis such right cannot be taken away by giving any retrospective effect to the provisions
of PPA.
, pp pp ,learned senior counsel has appeared for the respondents. The principal issue involved inthe matter:- To begin with, it has to be noted that the relationship between the erstwhile
insurance company as the landlord and the appellant as the occupant, at all materialtimes was governed under the Bombay Rent Act.
JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT
-
8/10/2019 Public Premises Act
73/73
The said Writ Petition shall stand allowed, and thejudgment and order dated 17.1.1996 passed by the City CivilCourt, Mumbai, as well as the eviction order dated
28.5.1993 passed by the respondent No. 2 against theappellant will stand set aside. The proceedings for evictionfrom premises, and for recovery of rent and damagesinitiated by the first respondent against the appellant underthe Public Premises Act, 1971, are held to be bad in law, and
shall therefore stand dismissed. We however, make it clear,that in case the respondents intend to take any steps forthat purpose, it will be open to them to resort to the remedyavailable under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999,provided they make out a case thereof
JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT