STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus VISHNUNARAYAN AND ASSOCIATES (P) LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 557 · Decided: 19-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
v. 
VISHNUNARA YAN AND ASSOCIATES (P) LTD. AND ANR. 
MARCH 19, 2002 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Great Eastern Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1980-Section 
3(1), 3(2), 4(1), 4(2), 4(7), and 4(8), 
Acquisition of Hotel Premises by the State Government-Effect of-
. Relationship of Landlords and Tenants-Held, relationship of landlords and 
tenants between State Government and occupants/tenants of the premises 
continues. 
Eviction of occupants/tenants-Use of force-Whether permissible-Held, 
State Government cannot use force to remove occupants/tenants from the 
premises-Such action is destructive of the basic principle of rule of law--
Great Eastern Hotel Taking over of Management Act, 197 5. 
West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. 
Section 6-A-Eviction of unauthorised tenants-Invoking of-Cannot be 
invoked by the Authority as the relationship of Tenants-Landlords continues 
even after the bcquisition of premises by the State Government. 
Appellant-State had taken over the management of the Undertaking of 
Great Eastern Hotel Ltd., a Company, under the provisions of the Great 
Eastern. Hotel (Taking over of Management) Act, 1975. Subsequently, as per 
provisions of the Great Eastern Hotei (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1980 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the Undertaking of the said Hotel was taken over by the Appellant-State and 
transferred to Great Eastern Authority set up under the Act. The Authority G 
as per direction of the State issued a Circular to occupants of the premises of 
the Hotel to provide them opportunity to establish their rights, if any, to 
remain in possession/occupation of the premises but Respondents-occupants· 
neither responded nor delivered the possession. The State, after oral warning, 
removed the occupants by force. 
557 
H 
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent-occupants tnoved the High Court by filing Writ Petitions 
challenging the action of the Government in dispossessing them by force and 
prayed for restoratiorr-of ppssession as they were tenants even after the Act 
of 1980 came into force. While disposing of the Writ Petition, High Court 
held that there was no element of public interest involved which would justify 
B forcible dispossession of the respondents occupants from the Hotel premises, 
which was a commercial venture and the Act of 1980 does not provide for 
use of force eviction of tenants. Aggrieved, State preferred appeals before this • 
Court. 
It was contended for the appellant-State that there was no transfer of 
C the lands and buildings to the Hotel Authority. Hence any action by the 
Authority against the respondents would not be binding on the Government, 
and that as per provisions contained in Section 3(1) of the Act of 1980, on the 
appointed day the vesting of Undertaking was absolute and complete; thus 
the tenancy between the respondents and the erstwhile Company came to an 
end; and that respondents were in default of their legal liability to hand over 
D the possession of the premises; and· that State Government, under the 
circumstances, could take necessary steps which include eviction by force to 
secure possession; and that the respondents were trespassers, therefore, the 
Government could evict them as per provisions of the West Bengal 
Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act of 1976. 
E 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is the settled position of law that the State or its executive 
officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can point to some 
specific provision of law, which authorises their acts. The ~overnment can 
p 
resume possession only in a manner known to or recognised by law. 
(564-H; 565-A) 
Bishan Das and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors., (1962) 2 SCR 69, 
followed. 
G 
State of UP. and Ors. v. Maharaja Dharamander Prasad Singh and Ors ... 
(1989) 2 sec 505, relied on. 
2.1. The State Government may, for the reasons stated in sub-section 2 
of Section 3, transfer the undertaking of the Company to the Hotel Authority 
except the lands and buildings vested in the State Government absolutely with 
H effect from the date of the notification issued un<Jer Section 3(1) of the Great 
' 
, 
ST ATE v. VISHUNARA YAN AND ASSOC. (P) LTD. 
559 
Eastern Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act (565-F] 
2.2. It is not disputed that there was a relationship of landlord and 
tenants betwe

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