NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus NUSLI NEVILLE WADIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 598 · Decided: 13-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 
v. 
_; 
L 
NUSLI NEVILLE W ADIA AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 13, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
" . 
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 
1971-ss. 4, 5 and 7-Proceedings under the Act-Dispute as to who 
c should begin to lead evidence in such proceedings-Held: Procedural 
aspect as to who should lead evidence first, may have to be determined 
on basis of issues arising in the matter-When an application for 
eviction is based on such grounds, which require production of positive 
evidence on part of the landlord, it would be for it to adduce evidence 
D first; more so in a composite application where evidence is also required 
to be led on quantum of damages to be determined by the Estate 
f -
Officer-Interpretation of Statutes-Purposive construction-
Evidence Act, 1872-s.101-Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 12. 
E 
Appellant-company, a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the 
Constitution, owns a building in the town ofMumbai. Respondents are 
the tenants occupying two apartments in the said building. Notices for 
eviction of the tenants were issued under the provisions of Public 
Premises (Eviction ofUnauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. 
F 
Dispute arose as to who should begin to lead evidence in 
proceedings initiated under the Act. 
On behalfof the appellant it was inter alia contended that having 
regard to the scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the 
G respondent-tenant should be directed to lead evidence and that the 
Estate Officer having satisfied itselfthatthe respondent-tenant was in 
unauthorized occupation of the public premises, it was for the tenant to 
establish that his occupation is authorized. 
H 
598 
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. NUSLI 
599 
NEVILLE WADIA 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The procedural aspect as to who should lead evidence 
first, may have to be determined on the basis of the issues arising in 
the matter. [Para 35] [614-D] 
A 
1.2. The occupants of public premises may be trespassers, or might B 
have breached the conditions of tenancy, or have been occupying the 
premises as a condition of service, but were continuing to occupy the 
premises despite cessation of contract of service. However, there may 
be another class of tenants who are required to be evicted on the ground, 
which requires proofof the fairness and reasonableness on the part of C 
the landlord which may include requirement for its own use and 
occupation. [Paras 26 and 27] [613-B, CJ 
1.3. Furthermore a proceeding may be initiated under Section 4 
simplicitor of the Public Premises (Eviction ofUnauthorized Occupants) D 
Act, 1971. A composite proceedings may also be initiated both under 
Sections 4 and 7 of the Act. In the latter category of cases the landlord 
would be required to establish not only the bona fide need on its part 
but also quantum of damages to which it may hold to be entitled to, in 
the event that an order is passed in favour of the establishment. 
E 
[Para 28] [613-D, E] 
1.4. When an application for eviction is based on such grounds, 
which require production of positive evidence on part of the landlord, it 
would be for it to adduce evidence first; more so in a composite 
application where the evidence is also required to be led on the quantum F 
of damages to be determined by the Estate Officer. 
[Para 30) [613-F, G) 
1.5. There may be a case where the tenant may take a defence 
which discloses no prima facie case in which event the Estate Officer G 
may ask him to lead evidence. But there may be cases where the ground 
of eviction, having regard to the defence taken by the occupants, may 
be required to be gone into. [Para31] [613-G-H, 614-A] 
1.6. The statute, although, does not require a lengthy hearing or a 
lengthy cross-examination but the noticee should be given an H 
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A opportunity to file an effective show cause. An effective show cause can 
-! ' 
be filed when eviction is sought for a specified ground and the occupants 
must know the particulars in relation thereto. For the said purpose, 
Sections 4 and 5 of the Act must be read together. Even the Rules which 
are validly framed must be read alongwith the statutory provisions. 
B 
[Paras 38 and 39] [615-A, B] 
Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India and Ors., [1990] 
lr 
'-
Supp SCC 440; Maharao Sahib Shir Bhim Singhjiv. Union of India and 
Ors., (1981] 1SCC166; JR. Rag

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