AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—The petitioner is an erstwhile lessee of the Corporation. The lease for the premises was created somewhere in the year
1979. It was a lease for one year, which expired somewhere in the year 1980 or 1981. The lessee continued to occupy the premises. Nothing
happened till 1990, when a notice was sent to the lessee u/s 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975
(Act No.1 of 1976), (hereinafter called as ''the Act'' for the sake of brevity). In that, it was stated that the possession of the petitioner was
unauthorised and as such, he was required to give reasons as to why proceedings should not be initiated against him for his eviction under the
provisions of the Act. This notice was served by the Estate Officer. The petitioner objected to that notice suggesting that he was continuously
giving the rent and as such his occupation could not be said to be unauthorised. The proceedings were taken up before the Estate Officer and the
Estate Officer, by his order dated 30.10.1991, passed an order of eviction. Before that, again objections were raised before him during the
pendency of the proceedings. There was nothing new in those objections from the earlier objections, which were already raised on 23.7.1990. The
petitioner filed an appeal under the provisions of the Act before the City Civil Court and the appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned
judgment dated 9.11.1994. These two concurrent orders are under challenge before me in the present writ petition.
The learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.R.Rajagopal earnestly argued that the very initiation of the proceedings u/s 4 was incorrect and illegal and
was stained with illegality. He pointed out that in the first place the petitioner could not be said to be in the unauthorised occupation as the
petitioner was continuously paying the rent right up to the month when the notice was served against him. The further contention is that u/s 4 of the
Act, the Estate Officer was required not only to state as to why the objection had become unauthorised, but also to specify the grounds on which
the order of eviction is proposed to be made. That not having been done, the notice was bad in law and could not initiate proper proceeding under
the Act. Learned Senior Counsel invites my attention to subsection (2) to Section 4, which is as under:-
Section 4(2):- The notice shall, (a) Specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made.
Learned Senior Counsel further argues that it is not as if every unauthorised occupant has to be ousted from the premises, but it is the discretion
left to the authority concerned to decide as to whether it was necessary to oust such an unauthorised occupant and at times for the good reasons
given, the said authority could even desist from ousting such person. The learned counsel pointed out that on account of the notice being defective,
a prejudice has caused to him as he could not understand as to what are the reasons for his ouster. In support of his contention, the learned senior
counsel has very heavily relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in A.I.R.1992 372 ""MINOO FRAMROZE
BALSARA -vs- UNION OF INDIA"". Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the action was being taken only against the petitioner
while the other equally circumstanced lessees or occupants were spared and thus, the Corporation was showing a violent discrimination against the
petitioner.
As against this, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, however, pointed out that firstly it was not true that the action was
initiated only against the petitioner. She also pointed out that the action was equally taken against all the unauthorised occupants and that was at the
behest of the Government, whose directions were binding upon the Corporation. She points out that even the Estate Officer has recorded this
reason in his notice that it was as per the Government''s discretion that the actions were initiated against all the erstwhile lessees of the Corporation.
She even pointed out that the petitioner has never pleaded any prejudice and as such, the objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel to the
legality of Section 4 notice was of no consequence.
Considering these rival submissions, it must be said that there could be no dispute that the Section 4 notice, which initiates the proceedings has
to be in terms of the section. Considering the language of Section 4, it must be said that the notice has to be given before initiating any action
against an unauthorised occupant and the reason for giving the notice is also required to be stated. There can be no escape from this contention,
particularly because of the observations made in paragraph 34 of the reported decision. The provisions in Bombay Act are Pari-Materia. When
we see the notice, it is stated that the occupation had become unauthorised and that he was required to give reasons as to why his eviction should
not be made under subsection (1) to Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. Therefore, prima
facie the notice appears to be silent insofar as it pertains to the reasons for taking the decision to oust the petitioner. However, the question is if
such reason is not given, would that invalidate the notice itself as well as the further proceedings. I have seen the judgment carefully. There is
nothing in the judgment to suggest that if the notice is silent on that issue, that by itself would invalidate the notice as well as the subsequent
proceedings. I am holding this particularly because it is a notice in the nature of a show cause notice and it was always open to the lessee to
complain to the Estate Officer by way of an objection to the notice or by way of a contention raised before the Estate Officer that a prejudice is
caused to the tenant by not knowing the reason for which the Corporation had taken a decision to oust the erstwhile tenant like him. When I see
the objection raised to the notice as well the objections filed before the Estate Officer, both the objections are completely silent in respect of this
particular aspect. As if this is not sufficient, the petitioner has maintained discrete silence before the appellate authority, before whom he could have
raised this ground. Therefore, it is obvious that the question of prejudice is being wrecked up for the first time in the writ petition and it is being
suggested that the petitioner suffered because he did not know the reasons behind his ouster. Again when we see the order of the Estate Officer
dated 30.10.1991, that reason is not far to see. It is specifically mentioned in the order itself that there were Government directions to oust such
tenants and it was in pursuance of the said directions that the actions were initiated at the instance of the Corporation. Therefore, the first question
argued by the learned Senior Counsel has to be answered against the petitioner by suggesting that it is too late in the day that the petitioner is
complaining about the prejudice caused to him because of the absence of any reasons in the notice u/s 4.
Insofar as the merits are concerned, it cannot be faulted that the petitioner had become an unauthorised occupant. The learned Senior Counsel
tried to suggest that since he was paying the rent every month and the Corporation was accepting the rent right till 1990, he could not be termed as
an unauthorised occupant. Section 2(g) gives the definition of the unauthorised occupant. It runs as under:-
Section 2(g):- ""unauthorised occupation"", in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without
authority for such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way
of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason
whatsoever.
A sheer glance at this definition would suggest that the occupation of any person, when it becomes without an authority for such occupation,
becomes unauthorised. In this case, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the lease was extended or that there was any specific order
passed by the Corporation to authorise the occupation, which was otherwise beyond the authority. It must be remembered that the lease was only
for one year and it has died its natural death on the expiry of one year. Therefore, considering the language of Section 2(g), it must be said that the
tenant was in the unauthorised occupation. If this is so, there are hardly any merits in the matter. Learned Senior Counsel also raises an objection
that there was no counter filed to suggest that similar actions were taken against the similarly situated erstwhile tenants. Learned counsel for the
Corporation is prepared to go on record to suggest that such actions have been universally taken against the said erstwhile lessees of the
Corporation. There is no reason to dispute the veracity of such a statement made at the Bar. In the result, the petition has no merits and it is
accordingly dismissed. However, under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to to the costs.