LexLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA versus SHIVA PRASAD TRIPATHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
( A LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA v. . .... SHIVA PRASAD TRIPATHI AND ORS. JANUARY 18, 1996 B (M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] Public Premises (Eviction of U11aut/Jorised occupants) Act, 1971 : '\ ~ S. J(}-()rders of Estate Officer and appellate authority-Suit for injwic- c lion to negate the orders--Ba1Ted-Adjudicatio11 on the questio11 whether a perso11 is a tenant or 1101 is 1101 taken away-Such adjudicatio11 would be declaratory i11 11ature a11d may sequal/y e11d up in a co11seque11ce-Nothi11g i11terim obtai11ab/e. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal' No. 2244 of D 1996. From the judgment and Order dated 21.2.95 of the Bombay High Court in C.W.P. No. 276 of 1995. H.N. Salve, Kailash Vasdev and C.K.. Sasi for the Appellant. E S.R. Seetharaman for the Respondent No. 1. The following Order of the Court was delivered : ' Leave granted. • F This is.an appeal against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 21.2.1995 passed in Ci;jl Writ Petition No. 276 of 1995 whereunder certain directions have been made towards conferral of jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court, Bombay which, p1ima facie, it is debarred to have. G The respondent-Shiva Prasad Tripathi-was an employee of the ap- pellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India and on that basis was allotted .. __, the premises owned and possessed by it. On expiry of the tenure of his service, the respondent was required to vacate the premises. When he refused to do so, the Estate Officer of the Corporation was brought into H action in issuing a notice to the respondent to show cause why appropriate 760 " \ ' .. L.l.C. OF INDIA v. S.P. TRIP A THI 761 orders under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised A Occupants) Act, 1971 [for short 'the Act'] be not passed against him. The cause shown by the respondent did not appeal to the Estate Officer and thus an order of eviction was passed. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal by the respondent before the City Civil Court at Bombay. The plea of the respondent before the appellate court that he was B a tenant in the disputed premises, having security of tenure, was not entertained and the matter was left at large. The respondent then moved the High Court in Writ Jurisdiction so as to challenge th~ orders of the Estate Officer as also that of the appellate authority. Though the respondent could not demolish the grounds for eviction in the High Court, he clung to the plea of despair that if he were to enter the Small Causes Court to establish his tenancy rights, his posses- sion in the interregnums would not be protected by the Small Causes Court due to Section 10 of the Act, which reads as follows : c "10. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order D made by an estate officer or appellate officer under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action faken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. E The respondent was given a lee-way by the High Court on taking the view that the question of tenancy pertains to property, which plea was adjudicable before a court or a competent authority, and that court or authority could issue an injunction or an interim direction, and no bar could be erected to stop it towards the grant thereof. It is in these circumstances that the High Court directed that the Judge, Small Causes Court, shall adjudicate on the question of tenancy when raised by the respondent in the suit and such court, in that event, would be able to issue any interim order or injunction which the respondent may be found entitled F to. In addition to that the High Court also ordered that the impugned G orders of the Estate Officer and the appellate authority would remain suspended till the decision of the application for an interim relief was filed before the Court of Small Causes. This has raised the instant challenge. We regret to say that the orders of the High Court are bereft of any reasoning in giving a complete go-by to the bar erected under section 10 H 762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) 1 S.C.R. A of the Act. Section 10 had not to be viewed in isolation but had to be understood in the context of the other provisions of the Act standing in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.