PRAKASH WAREHOUSING CO. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ANR.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 13-03-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PRAKASH WAREHOUSING CO. 
V. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY 
AND ANR. 
MARCH 13, 1991 
[T. KOCHU THOMMEN AND R.M.SAHAI, JJ .] 
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888-Sections 68 and 105A-
H-Corporation premises-Eviction of unauthorised occupants-
Powers of Corporation. 
Constitution of India 1950. Article 227-High Court-Interference 
A 
B 
with finding of fact-Whether valid. 
C 
_.. 
The original occupant of the suit godowns had on 1.10.1963 
-
granted to the appellant a licence in respect of the premises and subse-
quently by a deed of assignment dated 13.8.1966 assigned all its rights, 
- """( 
title and interest in the premises in favour of the appellant. The appel-
lant had in the meantime by agreement dated 27.3.1964 permitted the D 
second respondent to store goods in the premises. The appellant there-
after requested the Corporation to recognise it as the principal occu-
pant of the premises by means of a formal agreement. This request was 
at first rejected by the Corporation on the ground that the second 
respondent, had been already in occupation of the premises. Subse-
\_ _ quently thedCodrp
2
o
7
ra
3
tio
1
n
964
examdinefdt thet~efr~s ~tnd
1
fcothndiCtions oft~he E 
/ 
agreement ate 
. . 
an a er sa 1s ymg 1 se 
e 
orpora mn 
transferred the occupancy right to the appellant on the appellant ex-
ecuting a formal agreement dated 17 .6.1967. 
A notice dated 25. 7.1969 terminating tenancy in terms of the 
agreement dated 17.6.1969 was served on the appellant. This was F 
followed by an enquiry under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 
1888 which resulted in the order of eviction dated 6.1.1971, the appel-
lant being the principal tenant and the second repondent as a sub 
tenant. 
The enquiry officer, acting as a delegate in terms of section 68 and G 
exercising the power of the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation 
of Greater Bombay, the first respondent under section 1958, ordered 
eviction of the appellant on the ground of sub-letting the premises. 
The enquiry officer, on inspection, found that the second respon-
dent was in occupation of the premises as a sub-Jessee that the appeJJant H 
829 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991] 1 S.C.R. 
had sub-let the premises contrary to the terms of conditions of occupa-
tion and had thus become an unauthorised occupant liable to be evicted 
from the premises in terms of section 105B, and passed an order of 
eviction against the appellant. 
This order was, on appeal, set aside by the appellate officer, on 
appreciation of the evidence and the terms of the agreements, the appel-
late officer held that the agreement dated 27 .3.1964, approved and 
recorded the assignment and transfer of the right, title and interest of 
the original occupant to the appellant, and recognised the appellant as 
the principal occupant, and that the Corporation was at all material 
times aware of the appellant's relationship with the second respondent 
and the occupation of the premises by the second respondent under the 
appellant. The eviction of the appellan~ solely on the ground of sub-
letting was therefore unwarranted. 
The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of 
the Constitution held that the appellate officer was wrong in saying that 
the circumstances had not altered so as to warrant an order of evicti~n 
on the ground of sub-lease, and that the lease in favour of the appellant 
had been duly determined by the Corporation in terms of the contract, 
and the appellant having thus become an "unauthorised" occupant was 
as such liable to be evicted under clause (b) of sub-section ( 1). of section 
1058. The High Court accordingly set aside the order made by the 
appellate officer under section 105B and restored the order of eviction 
made under section lOSB by the Enquiry Officer. 
In the appeal to this Court it was submitted on behalf of the 
appellant that persons in occupation of premises under authority are 
not liable to be evicted otherwise than on any one of the statutorily specified 
grounds, and that the application of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of 
section lOSB, is confined to persons in unauthorised occupation, and 
that the appellate officer having found that the Corporation when it 
entered into an agreement of occupation with the appellant on 
17.6.1967 fully aware of the terms and conditions under which the 
second respondent was in occupation of the premises under the appel-
lant, the High Court was not jus

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