SHANGRILA FOOD PRODUCTS LTD. AND ANR. versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 09-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SHANGRILA FOOD PRODUCTS LTD. AND"ANR. 
v. 
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
JULY 9, 1996 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND SUJATJ\ V. MANOHAR, JJ.j 
Public Premises (Eviction of Unautlz01ized Occupants) Act, 1971-Sec-
tion 7-Damages-Wlten payable. 
A 
B 
Constitution of India-A1ticles 226 and 227-Extraordinmy Jwisdic-
C 
tion-Scope of-Remand-Equity-Cowt can set aside any unfair advantage 
gained by a pa1ty before granting relief to thepmty-Pilblic Premises (Eviction 
of Unauth01ized Occupants) Act, 1971. 
The appellant company was a sub-tenant of the Respondent Cor-
poration. The Respondent Corporation initiated legal proceedings for D 
eviction of the appellant under the provisions of the public Premises 
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The Estate Otlicer held 
that both the appellant Company as well as the original tenant were 
unauthorized occupants and passed an order of eviction in favour of the 
Respondent. The Estate Otlicer also awarded damages to the Respondent. E 
Under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized 
Occupants) Act, 1971, the Estate Officer can rec1uire an authorized tenant 
to pay rent within such time and in such instalments as may be specified 
in his order. Likewise, an unauthorized occupant may be required to pay 
damages within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in 
F 
the order. 
On appeal to the Civil Court, the order of eviclion was u1>held but 
the award of damages was <(Uashed. The appellant challenged the order of 
eviction by way of a writ petition. However, the Respondent did not G 
cha!lenge by way of a writ petition or otherwise, the order of the Lower 
Court quashing damages. 
The Single Judge set aside the order of eviction on the ground that 
the Estate Officer had not dealt with the matter satisfactorily and ex-
pressed his view that he wanted to remand the matter back to the Estate H 
279 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Officer for fresh· decision. On this, the Respondent argued that it should 
be allowed to re- agitate its claim for damages in case of remand. The 
appellant opposed the plea on the ground that as the Respondent had not 
tiled any petition against the order quashing damage, a right had occurred 
in favour of the appellant under the procedural law and it could not be 
B deprived. of the advantage so gained. The Single Judge while remanding 
the matter, held that in the event it was proved that the appellants were 
unauthorized occupants, the Respondent "ill have opportunity to press its 
claim for damages. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Appellant was 
dismissed summarily. 
C 
Dismissing the appeal against the order of the High Court, this 
Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court committed no wrong in putting the 
negated claim of damages on the scale of justice as a balancer, before 
granting relief, in setting aside the orders of eviction and effecting a 
D remand, for fresh disposal in accordance with law. [286-B] 
2. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of 
the Constitution can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances 
of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and 
E substantial justice. This jurisdiction of' the High Court, being extraordi-
nary, is normally exercisable keeping in mind the principles of equity. One 
of the ends of the equity is to promote honesty and fair play. If' there be 
any unfair advantage gained by a party priorly, before invoking the juris-
diction of the High Court, the court can take into account the unfair 
advantage gained before granting relief. [285-B] 
F 
3. Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Oc-
cupants) Act, 1971 confers power on the Estate Officer to require payment 
of rent or damages in respect of public premises. If a person is an 
authorised occupant, he can be required to pay the rent within such time 
G and in such instaln1ents as may be specified in the order. Likewise, an 
unauthorised occupant of any public premises may be rec1uired by the 
Estate Officer to pay damages within such time and in such instalments 
as may be stipulated in the order. It is thus plain and clear that unless the 
occupant is first adjudged as an unauthorised occupant, his liability to 
pay da1nages does not arise. The ciuestion of claim to damages and their 
H ascertainment would only arise in the event of the Respondent, succeeding 
SHANGRILAFOOD PRDTS.LTD. v. L.I.C. [P

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