BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KOLKATA versus KALIPADA BHAKAT & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 187 · Decided: 09-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 12 S.C.R. 187 
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KOLKATA 
v. 
KALIPADA BHAKAT & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9387 of 2014) 
·OCTOBER 9, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) 
Act, 1971 - s.4 - Land allotted on lease - Termination of the 
C 
tenancy- In eviction proceedings, R-1 appeared as power of 
attorney ·holder of R-2 (the allottee) - Eviction order -
Challenged by R-1 and not R-2 - Locus of R-1 to maintain 
the statutory appeal - Held: R-1 being power of attorney holder 
of R-2, cannot be allowed to maintain the appeal on his own 
D 
behalf -
s. 4(2) is not applicable to such unauthorised 
occupants, who enter into possession after initiation of eviction 
proceedings against their predecessor in possession. 
Allowing the appeal with costs, the Court 
HELD : Respondent No. 1, who was power of 
attorney holder of -Respondent No. 2, cannot be allowed 
E 
to maintain the appeal on his own behalf to protract the 
eviction proceedings. The proceeding has been drawn 
against unauthorised occupant (respondent No. 2) and 
F 
to escape :eviction, she appears to have handed over 
possession of the premises to Respondent No.1, as 
such, the subsequent occupier cannot be entitled to, 
fresh notice. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act 
cannot be restored to, to protect the interest of such 
G 
unauthorised occupants who enter into possession, 
after eviction proceeding has been initiated against their 
predecessor in possession. [Para 7] [191-B-E] 
187 
H 
188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
8 
c 
9387 of 2014. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 05.02.2010 of the High 
Court at Calcutta in CO No. 3991 of 2009. 
Parag Tripathi, A.V. Rangam, Buddy A.R., Arunabh 
Ganguli for the Appellant. 
Susmita Lal for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C.PANT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
dated 5.2.2010 passed by the High Court of Calcutta whereby 
D said Court, exercising powers under Article 226 of the 
Constitution of India, has allowed the application of the 
respondent No.1, for condonation of delay filed before the 
appellate authority (District Judge/ Additional District Judge, 
Alipore) and leave is granted to the said respondent to file the 
E appeal under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised 
Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). 
3. Brief facts of the case are that a plot of land measuring 
133.41 sq. meters at 33 Coal Depot, Chetla Railway Siding 
also known as Chetla Station Yard was allotted by the Port Trust 
F to Raj Virmani (present respondent No.2), on a month to month 
lease basis, and the lease deed was executed on 1.2.1972. 
The tenancy of the said tenant was terminated by the appellant 
vide notice dated 1.7.1983. Thereafter, appellant, Board of 
Trustee of the Port of Calcutta initiated eviction proceeding 
G against respondent No.2, Raj Virmani. In the year, 1992 the 
present respondent No.1, Kalipada Bhakat, in said eviction 
proceedings, appeared as power of attorney holder on behalf 
of Raj Virmani. In the· year 1994 respondent No.1 applied to 
the Board of Trustee of the Port of Calcutta to induct him as a 
H tenant (which was not accepted). The Estate Officer, 
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KOLKATA v. 189 
KALIPADA BHAKAT [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
respondent No.3 by its order dated 4.8.2008 cjirected eviction 
of the unauthorised occupant from the premises with further 
direction for payment of arrears of rent and mesne profits. Said 
authority, in its order, observed that present respondent No.1 
has a right to establish his authority to occupy the premises 
A 
B 
but failed· to establish the same. From the order dated 4.8.2008 
passed by the Estate Officer it is clear that Raj Virmani parted 
with the possession of the public premises unauthorisedly to 
respondent No.1 who is running his business in the name and 
style of M/s. Bhakat Motors. Respondent No.2, Raj Virmani 
never filed any appeal against the said order passed by the c 
Estate Officer. However, Respondent No.1, Kalipada Bhakat 
attempted to file an appeal along with an application for 
condonation of delay with the same. Said application was 
contested before the appellate authority by the present 
appellant. The plea taken by the respondent Kalipada Bhakat 
0 
before the ap

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