SURESH NARAYAN KADAM & ORS. versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1071 · Decided: 05-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2016] I S.C.R. 1071 
SURESH NARAYAN KADAM & ORS. 
v. 
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 
(SLP(C)Nos. 1878-1879of2009) 
FEBRUARY 05, 2016 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 
1971: 
Eviction and damages - MHADA constructed some buildings 
for lower and middle income gr01q1 - Leased out the land underneath 
the buildings to the respondenl-Bank for 90 years - Bank took 
possession of land and ten such buildings wilh intention of housing 
the families of its 200 employees -Allotment was as per the absolute 
discretion of the management and not as a condition of service nor 
any right vested in any staff memher - With a view to redevelop the 
plot in question, Bank stopped a/lolling the flats and .floated a 
proposal for redevelopment of /he p/01 by demolishing the building 
which necessitaled eviclion of employees from !he j/als occupied by 
them - Eviction ordered by Estate Officer - Employees also directed 
lo pay damages - Challenge againsl - Held: If there is violation of 
provision of ie.ase deed between MHADA and /he Bank, it is for 
them to settle their differences - Employees do not come into picture 
at all - Employees have no/ made out case ji)/· their entitlement to 
continue in the allotted premises since the allotmen/ irns not part of 
their condition of service - Time granted to employees to mcate -
However, order to pay damages to the bank for the use and 
occupation of the premises allotted is set aside. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Conrt 
HELD: There is no doubt that none of the employees have 
any right to retain the allotted premises, more particularly since 
the allotment was not a part of their condition of service. The 
contention was raised that the hmd was leased out by the MHADA 
to the Bank for the purposes of housing middle income group 
employees or lower income group employees and as a result of 
the redevelopment plan, the Bank was intending to demolish the 
1071 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1072 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
buildings and to construct luxury apartments for their managerial 
level officers, contrary to the lease agreement with MHADA. 
Assuming this to be so, if there is a violation of the provisions of 
the lease deed between the MHADA and the Bank, it is really 
for them·to settle their differences, if any. The employees do not 
B come into the picture at all. 
The various clauses in the lease 
agreement do not in any manner involve. the employees and for 
them to raise au.issue about any alleged violation of the provisions 
of the lease deed is totally inconsequential. Since the employees 
have been residing in the flats for a considerable period of time, 
they are granted time to vacate the premises allotted to them on 
C or before 31" March, 2016. The Bank has demanded damages 
from the employees both who are still working with the Bank 
and those who have retired. Since the employees were pursuing 
their remedies before the High Court as well as before this Court, 
it is not appropriate to direct them to pay any damages to the. 
D 
Bank for the use and occupation of the premises allotted nor it 
is appropriate to permit the Bank to recover the damages awarded 
against the employees. [Paras 18 to 20, 23, 24][1077-G; 1078-
A-C, F, H; 1079-A] 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India (2005) 
6 SCC 344: 2005 (l)Suppl. SCR 929; Afcons 
Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. 
(P) Ltd. (2010) 8 sec 24: 2010 (8) SCR 1053 ; K. 
Srinivas Rao v. D.A. 
Deepa 
(2013) 
5 
SCC 
226: 2013 (2) SCR 126: 2013 (2) SCR 126 - referred 
to. 
Case Law Reference 
2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 929 
2010 (8) SCR 1053 
2013 f2) SCR 126 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
Para 3 
Para3 
Para3 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP Nos. 1878-1879 OF 
2009 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2008 in Writ Petition 
No. 4417/2008 and Writ Petition No. 5589/2008 of the High Court of 
Bombay. 
SURESH NARAYAN KADAM v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 
Prashant Bhushan for the Appellants. 
RanjitKumar, SG, Jaideep Gupta, Ajay Sharma, Nee lam Sharma, 
Rajeev Sharma, Dinesh Mathur, Priyanka Bharti, Rachna·Gupta, Tapesh 
Kumar Singh, Mohd. Waquas for the Respondents. 
' . 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. I. The proceedings in these petitions 
as indeed the proceedings in the Bombay High Court (out of which the 
present petitions have arisen) indicate a clear need for encouragi

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