National   

Only landlord can invoke Public Premises Act: court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, can be invoked only by the landlord/owner to evict the tenant and not by the occupier in arrears of rent to continue to stay on the premises.

A Bench, comprising Justices H.K. Sema and Markandey Katju said: “on a cursory reading of Section 7 of the Act, it clearly appears that the power is exercisable by the Estate Officer (EO) suo motu or on an application of the landlord/owner, and the occupant of the premises has absolutely no jurisdiction to file an application under Section 7 of the Act.”

Section 7 says “power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises. Where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the EO may, by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order.”

Thousands of petitions filed by tenants under this provision for a direction to landlords to accept arrears of rent are pending in various courts across the country. Several High Courts had also interpreted that the Act would be applicable both to the landlord and the tenant.

The present ruling by the apex court assumes importance as it takes away the jurisdiction of the tenants filing applications under this provision.

The Bench said: “the only right available to the occupant is that under Section 7 (3) the authority must issue notice in writing to the occupant calling upon him to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why such [eviction] order should not be made.”

The Bench noted that this provision envisaged that no eviction order could be made until the objections of the occupant were considered by the EO.

In the instant case, M/s Castlewood (India), occupant of the public premises owned by Life Insurance Corporation of India in Kolkata, filed an application under Section 7 of the Act before the EO that LIC might be directed to accept the rent. The EO did not accept the application and eviction was ordered.

On a revision from the occupier, the Calcutta High Court set aside the EO’s order holding that a lawful occupier could invoke the provisions of Section 7 before he was illegally branded a defaulter. The appeal by LIC was against this order.

Allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the High Court’s judgment accepting the contentions of S. Rajappa, counsel for LIC, that this provision could not be invoked by a tenant.

The Bench said if the interpretation of the High Court was accepted “it would amount to rewriting the Section which power only belongs to the Legislature and not the judiciary.”

The Bench asked the EO to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Orissa losing war against naxalite violence
Mayawati to back Gujjars’ demand
Give up Sethu project, says Togadia
Kandahar not a weak point: Rajnath
Screening of Jodhaa Akbar stopped in Ahmedabad
Only landlord can invoke Public Premises Act: court
Candidates have face-to-face interaction with voters in Kohima constituency
Farmers up in arms over proposed power plant
Hooda for equal distribution of canal water
Grand reception awaits Mauritius PM in Bihar
Give up politics of violence: Fernandes
Cong. caused instability in Meghalaya: Sangma
Ordnance units seek foreign tie-ups
The last ride at Appu Ghar
BJP to hold women’s rally
Reliance Power plans one-time measures
“Naga peace process has slowed down”

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu