LexMAGANLAL CHHAGGANLAL (P) LTD versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• A MAGANLAL CHHAGGANLAL (P) LTD. v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY & ORS . April 11, 1974 B rA. N. RAY, C.J., D. G. PALEKAR, H. R. KHANNA, K. K. MATHEW, A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. N. BHAGWATI AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.J c D E F G Consrit"tion of Jndfa, 1950, A.rt. 14-Provision in the Bon1bay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and the Bombay Goi•er11nlefll Pren1iscs (Eviction) Act, 1955, for a .vpeedy procedure of eviction in addition to procedure in a civil suit- Stn!cial procedure, if discrbninatory. Chapter VA was introduced in the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, bv Maharashtra Act 14 of 1961. It consists of ss. 105A to 105H. Se~tion Hl5A (d) defines unauthorised occupation. Under s. 1058 (p) tho Commi,sioner, by notice served on the person in unauthorised occupation could order him to vacate within one month of the date of service of the notice. on any of the grounds nicntioned in clau:ies (a), (b) and (c) of that sub-section. Vader sub-s. (2), before making such an order, the Commissioner shall issue a notice to the pi:;rs:ons concerned specifying the grounds on which the order of eviction j5 proposed to be made and to show cause against the proposed q-rder of eviction. The person concerned can file a written statement, produce docun1ents and is entitled to appear b:fore the Commissioner by a lawyer. If, after hearing the person concerned the Commissioner is satisfied that the case falls under clauses (a), t b) or ( c} of sub-s. (I) he is~n1es a notice of eviction, and, if the person .'>O ordered to vacate fails to comply with the order he, as well as any other person whl) obstructs eviction, can be evicted by force under eub-s. (3). Under :;ub-s. (6) the Commissioner may, in certain cases, in lieu of evicting the person cancel the· order under eub-s. (1) and such person may continue in oc..:upation. Under s. 105E tho Commissioner, for the purpose of holding an~· inquiry under the Act. has the siimo powers as are vested in a civil court under thei C.P.C. in (e.;;pect of. (i) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, (ii) requiring the discovery and production of docu- rnents. and (iii) any other matter which may be prescribed by regulations under s. f05H. Under s. 105F everv order of eviction is appealable to the Principal Judge of the Citv Civil Court of Bombay or su1;h other judicial officer of not less than 10 years standing as tho Principal Judge may designate. The appellate Judge. is given power to stay the enforcement of the order of Conunissioner on conditions and is required to dispooe of the appeal expeditiously. Section 105G provides that, subject to the result of the appeal, every order of the Co111n1iss.ioner or of the aopellate Judge is fina1. Under s. 105H regulations may he made. inter alia, in respect of holding of inquiries and the procedure to be followed in appeals. The Bon1bay Government Premise!'\ (Eviction) Act, 1955, also lays down S1Jectal procedure for eviction of persoru from government premises which i~ 1nore or less similar to Chapter V of the Municipal Act. The power to order the eviction is given to an authority not lower in rank than a Deputy Collector or an Executive Engineer, Section 8A of the Act provides that no civil conrt ~hall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of eviction. The-re is no such provision in the Municipal Act but the proceedings in the in:ltant cases arose before s. 8A was introduced in the 1955-Act by Maharashtra Act of 1969. The constitutional validity of Chapter VA of the Municipal Act and the pro- visions of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, as it stood prio1· to its amendment by Maharaahtra Act of 1969, was challenged on the ground that they H contravene Art. 14. on the basis of the decision of thi3 Court in Northern !tr.dia Ca/ems [1967] 3 S.C.R. 399, wherein it was held, by tho majority of judges, that amongst occupants of public premises inter se there was discrimination in as much as the special procedure in the Punjab Public Premises and Land 2-1J!Sup.Clr75 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] 1 s.c.R. (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959, Vias more-drastic ilnd prejudicial than . A the ordinary procedure of a civil suit and that it was left to the arbitrary ani.I imfettered discretion of the Government to adopt such _special proJ:edurr:. against !Ome and not against the others. HELD (By Full
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.