LexDR. SUHAS H. POPHALE versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 2 S.C.R. 480 DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER (Civil Appeal No. 1970 of 2014) FEBRUARY 11, 2014 [H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR JJ.) PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED C OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971: ss.15 and 2(e) r/w s.2(d) - "Public premises" - Eviction of unauthorized occupants - Appellant in occupation of suit property belonging to predecessor-in-title of first respondent, D Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Held: In Ashoka Marketing Ltd., it has been held that Rent Control Act and Public Premises Act operated in two different areas -- The provisions of the two enactments will have to be read harmoniously to permit the operation and co-existence of both of them to the extent it can E be done - In the instant case, appellant was protected as a 'deemed tenant' uls 15A of Bombay Rent Act, prior to the merger of the erstwhile insurance company with first respondent-Government Company and continued to be protected as tenant uls 7(15)(a}(ii) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act -- He could be removed only in accordance with F the procedure available under Bombay Rent Act or Maharashtra Rent Act - Leave and licence - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - s. 15-A. G s.2(e) - "Public premises" - Eviction of unauthorized occupants - Appellant in occupation of suit property prior to their being acquired under the Act - Held: - The appellant's status as a deemed tenant was accepted under the State enactment and, therefore, he could not be said to be in H 480 DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 481 LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER "unauthorised occupation" -- His right granted by the State A enactment cannot be destroyed by giving any retrospective application to provisions of Public Premises Act, since there is no such express provision in the statute, nor is it warranted by any implication -- In fact premises occupied by him would not come within the ambit of Public Premises Act, until they B belonged to first respondent , i. e until 1. 1. 197 4 -- If first respondent wanted to evict the appellant, remedy was to resort to the procedure available under Bombay Rent Act or its successor Maharashtra Rent Act, by approaching the forum thereunder, and not by resorting to the provisions of Public c Premises Act. s.2(e) - "Public premises" - Eviction of unauthorized occupants - Held: In Ashoka Marketing, it has been obseNed that Public Premises Act is enacted to deal with mischief of 'rampant unauthorised occupation' of public premises - Clause 2(1) of guidelines dated 30.5.2002 emphasises that the Act was meant to evict (a) totally unauthorised occupants of the public premises or subletees, or (b) employees who have ceased to be in their seNice, and were ineligible to occupy the premises -- "Guidelines to Prevent Arbitrary use of Powers to Evict Genuine Tenants from Public Premises Under the Control of Public Sector Undertakings I Financial Institutions (dated 30-5-2002, published in the Gazette of India dated 8-6-2002). Application of the Act - Held: For any premises to become public premises, the relevant date will be 16.9.1958 or the date on which the premises become public premises as belonging to or taken on lease by Corporation/ Companies D E F like the first respondent, whichever is later -- All those persons G falling within the definition of 'tenant' occupying the premises prior thereto will not come under the ambit of Public Premises Act and cannot, therefore, be said to be persons in ''.unauthorised occupation" -- Whatever rights such prior . tenants, members of their families or heirs of such tenants or H 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R. A deemed tenants or all of those who fall within the definition of 'tenant' under the Bombay Rent Act have, are continued under Maharashtra Rent Act -- If possession of premises in their occupation is required, that will have to be resorted to by taking steps under the Bombay Rent Act or Maharashtra Rent Act - B - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. A leave and licence agreement in respect of the suit premises belonging to Indian Mercantile Insurance Company Ltd., the predecessor-in-title of the first respondent-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., was executed by C the original tenant on 20.12.1972 in favour of the appellant . It was the case of the appellant that Indian Mercanti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.