LexM/S BAND BOX PRIVATE LIMITED versus ESTATE OFFICER, PUNJAB & SIND BANK AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2014] 4 S.C.R. 42 M/S BAND BOX PRIVATE LIMITED v. ESTATE OFFICER, PUNJAB & SINO BANK AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2878 of 2014) FEBRUARY 25, 2014 [H.L. GOKHALE AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ] PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971: Eviction of unauthorized occupants - Appellant in occupation of property in question since 26. 3. 1952 - Respondent-Bank becoming owner of it on 13.12.1978 - Notice uls 106 of TP Act by Bank followed by proceedings to 0 evict the appellant - Plea of appellant that it was protected under Delhi Rent Control Act - Order of eviction by Estate Officer of Bank - Confirmed by District Judge as well as single Judge and Division Bench of High Court - Held: Orders passed by Division Bench as well as by single Judge of High E F Court, District Judge, and Estate Officer are set aside -- Eviction proceedings initiated against appellant will stand set aside - However, appellant shall continue to pay Rs.1,80,0001 - per month as rent as per order dated 6.8.2012, in place of the recorded rent of Rs. 183 per month, for a period of 12 years with an annual increase of 10% as directed in the order - It is made clear that after 12 years, it will be open to respondents to take steps under Public Premises Act, if required - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s.106. Ashoka Marketing Limited and another vs. Punjab G National Bank and others 1990 (3) SCR 649 = (1990) 4 SCC 406; Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited 2014 (2) SCALE 223; Mis Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs. L.l.C. 1981 (1) SCR 498 = (1980) 4 SCC 435, Kaiser-1- Hind Pvt. Limited andanother vs. National textile Corporation H 42 M/S BAND BOX PRIVATE LIMITED v. ESTATE 43 OFFICER, PUNJAB & SINO BANK AND ANR. (Maharashtra North) Limited and others 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR . A 555 = (2002) 8 sec 182 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 1990 (3) SCR 649 referred to para 5 B 2014 (2) SCALE 223 referred to para 6 1981 (1) SCR 498 referred to para 8 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 555 referred to para 9 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. C 2878 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.07.2012 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 250 of 2012. Harin P. Raval, Nikhil Goel, Marsook Bafaki, Naveen Goel for the Appellant. Vikas Singh, Suruchii Aggarwal, Deepeika Kalia, Kapish Seth for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned senior counsel in support of this appeal and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. D E F 3. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order G dated 13.07.2012 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in LP.A. No.250/2012, whereby the Division Bench confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders passed by the District Judge and the Estate Officer. The appellant has been directed to be evicted under H 44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. A these orders from the concerned premises situated at 18/90, Con naught Circus.New Delhi-110001. 4. The case of the appellant is that the appellant has been occupying these premises right from 26th March, 1952 and the 8 respondent-Bank became owner of this property only on 31.12.1978. There were some initial notices issued to the appellant to vacate the premises, but ultimately it is the notice dated 15.11.1999 with which we are concerned in the present matter. It was the notice issued by invoking the provisions of C Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. This was followed by the proceeding to evict the appellant which has led to the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer, and which has been confirmed, as stated above, all throughout. 5. Mr. Raval submits that the appellant had raised the point D of not being covered under the Public Premises Act, 1971 at all stages. He has drawn our attention to the order passed by the Estate Officer, wherein it has been recorded that the appellant canvassed that the appellant's tenancy continued un~er the protection of Delhi Rent Control Act, and the E respondents were not capable of terminating the tenancy by mere service of the notice. That submission was specifically rejected by the Estate Officer by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Ashoka Marketing Limited and another vs. Punjab National Bank and others reported in (1990)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.