BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA AND ORS versus APL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 21-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA
        AND ORS.
v.
APL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3910 of 2013)
 FEBRUARY 21, 2019
[A. K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN AND
S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
1971 – ss.2(g), 5, 5A and 6 – Land allotted to one M/s. Shalimar
Tar Products Ltd. (STPL) – STPL stopped paying rent to the Port
Trust – Lease in favour of STPL expired – STPL failed to deliver
possession of the premises – Port Trust initiated eviction proceedings
u/PP Act – Estate Officer passed eviction order – Authorized officer
appointed for recovery of the possession of the premises, took
possession of the premises and the containers stacked thereon –
Notice u/s.6(1) issued by the Estate Officer to remove or cause to
be removed or disposed of by public auction, any property remaining
on the premises – In the said proceedings, the respondent no.6
appeared and sought permission to remove the huge number of
containers from the premises – Rejected – Respondent filed writ
petition, inter alia, seeking permission to remove the containers lying
on the premises – Single Judge while holding that there are different
views taken by two different Division Benches of the Calcutta High
Court in Canoro Resources and Indian Rayon on the scope and ambit
of s.59 of the 1963 Act, referred the matter to the Chief Justice for
constitution of larger Bench– Full Bench held that ss.59, 61 of the
1963 Act cannot be read into proceedings u/PP Act and directed
placing of the writ petition before Single Judge – On appeal, held:
PP Act provides for eviction of occupants from public premises and
for certain incidental matters – Act was enacted to provide for a
speedy machinery for the eviction of unauthorized occupants of
the public premises as it became impossible for government to take
expeditious action even in flagrant cases of unauthorised occupation
of public premises – Any person in occupation of the public premises
without authority for such occupation is an unauthorized occupant
                                        [2019] 4 S.C.R. 829
829
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
– Expression ‘spread on any public premises’, contained in
s.5A(1)(b) also means ‘lying on any premises’– s.5A(3) authorizes
the Estate Officer to remove any goods lying on any public premises
after an order of eviction u/s.5 – It is also not necessary that there
should be a privity of contract between the Port Trust and the third
party to whom such goods belong for disposing of the property by
the Estate Officer u/s.6 – s.6 applies, inter alia, to the persons who
keep their goods in the public premises whether they are tenants/
licensees, sub-tenants or any other parties –Estate Officer, u/s.6 is
entitled to sell the goods even of a stranger, found in/on the premises
under unauthorized occupation – Full Bench justified in holding
that there is no conflict between the two judgments of Division Bench
in Canoro Resources and Indian Rayon – Single Judge of the High
Court to decide the writ petition expeditiously – Major Port Trusts
Act, 1963 – ss.59 and 61.
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
1971 – s.6 – Purpose of – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is not in dispute that the premises is a “public
premises” as defined under the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 Act. The PP Act provides
for eviction of occupants from public premises and for certain
incidental matters. This Act was enacted to provide for a speedy
machinery for the eviction of unauthorized occupants of the public
premises. It is clear from the statement of object and reasons of
the PP Act that it has become impossible for government to take
expeditious action even in flagrant cases of unauthorised
occupation of public premises and recovery of rent or damages
for such unauthorised occupation. It is, therefore, considered
imperative to restore a speedy machinery for the eviction of
persons who are in unauthorised occupation. [Paras 15, 16]
[837-G-H; 838-E]
1.2 Section 2(g) defines the expression ‘unauthorised
occupation’ in relation to public premises. Section 5 lays down
the procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants. Section
5A was inserted by Act 61 of 1980, which has come into force
with effect from 20.12.1980. This Section provides for removal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
831
of unauthorized construction on or against or in front of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.