Public Premises Act

8/10/2019 Public Premises Act

1/73

THE PUBLIC PREMISES(Eviction of unauthorized occupants)

ACT, 1971


2/73


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


4/73


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.


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


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}


8/73

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;


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


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.


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


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


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)}


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)}


15/73

CASE-LAW

Whether the Nationalized banks

premises comes under thepurview of public premises ornot?


16/73

Ref. case law:

Ashoka Marketing Ltd

vs.

Punjab National Bank

A I R 1991 S C 855


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


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


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


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.


21/73


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.


23/73


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 .


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


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


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


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.


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


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}


31/73


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


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.


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


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.


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


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:


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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].


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


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.


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.


49/73


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


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


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


53/73

CASE-LAW

Suhash H Pophale vs OrientalInsurance Co.Ltd & another

Dt of order 11/02/2014

AIR SCW 1171


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


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


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


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


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


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


60/73

This question arises in the context of the eviction


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


69/73

ARGUMENTS


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


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,


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


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

Public Premises Act

Documents

Transcript of Public Premises Act