Anil Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of Writ quashing of notice dated 8th June, 1994 issued by the Estate Officer under Section 7(3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 for payment of arrears of rent in respect of premises situated at Ashoka Hotel, 50 B Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021.
2. The petitioner is a banking company incorporated in UK and having its registered office in India at H-2, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi. The petitioner company was into the business of issuing Visa cards for buying the goods and services on credit by entering into agreement, which governs the relationship between the petitioner and the establishment for the repayment of the money in lieu of visa card. According to the petitioner every Visa card has a floor limit and the user of the card in excess of floor limit requires authorization from the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that if no specific authorization of the transaction is obtained in case the card is used in excess of the floor limit then the petitioner is not liable to reimburse the shops/establishments which accepts the said visa card in terms of the agreement.
3. Respondent No. 2, Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited, is a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act and respondent No. 3, M/s Ashoka Hotel, is its constituent unit.
4. Brief facts to comprehend the dispute are that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 2 dated 1.6.1989. The floor limit as provided under the schedule of the agreement was Rs. 16,000/-. On 22.12.1989 Dwarka Nath Tandon, a visa card holder, purchased liquor worth Rs. 23,400/- from the Garden Bar of the respondent No. 3 and the bill was settled with respondent No. 3 through his visa card bearing No. 4563 9810 0316 6024 and the respondent No. 3 accepted the same in total disregard of the agreement without obtaining the authorization from the petitioner bank despite knowing the fact that the billing amount exceeded the floor limit.
5. Since the amount exceeded the floor limit and no authorization was obtained from the petitioner so the petitioner refused to reimburse the amount to the respondent No. 3. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 has by ticket splitting attempted to circumvent the floor limit. The respondent issued various demand letters to the petitioner for remittance of amount, however, the same was declined by the petitioner. By letter dated 15.6.1991 the petitioner informed the respondent that a recovery suit has been instituted against Dwarka Nath Tandon by the petitioner which is pending in the court. By letter dated 8.7.1991 the respondent No. 3 again called for payment of the amount from the petitioner failing which it was contended that a legal action will be initiated for recovery of amount. The petitioner replied to the letter denying any liability whatsoever as the same was in excess of the hotel's floor limit.
6. Thereafter an application under Section 7 of the public premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 was filed by the respondent No. 2 & 3 before the Estate Officer for issuance of orders for recovery of Rs. 23,700/-, pursuant to which a notice under Section 7(3) of the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was issued by the respondent No. 4, Estate officer, for payment of a total sum of Rs. 46,652/- which amount includes 18% interest as arrears of rent on 8.6.1994 calling upon the petitioner to show cause on 18.7.1994 at 3:00 PM.
7. On receipt of the notice under Section 7(3) of the public premises act the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the impugned notice on the ground that the notice issued is an abuse of the process of law as the provision of Public Premises Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand as the petitioner is neither a tenant nor he is in unauthorized occupation of the public premises.
8. The learned Counsel for petitioner relied on : [1973]2SCR166 , Raj Kumar Devender Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab to contend that since the petitioner was not in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and thereforee the impugned notice issued by the Estate officer under the provision of the public premises act was without jurisdiction.
9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the petition and the documents filed Along with it. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the requirement of authorization in case the transaction exceeds the floor limit. The relevant portion of the agreement is as under:
AUTHORISATION/FLOOR LIMIT: The bank will inform the Merchant of a rupee limit from time to time applicable to any single transaction(floor limit). If the total amount of any Transaction is in excess of the Floor limit, merchant will obtain specific authorization from the bank or as otherwise directed by the bank. If the authorization is granted, Merchant will indicate the said approval on the sales slip. Merchant will not issue two or more sales slips or cards in a single transaction to avoid required authorization calls.
10. The schedule of the agreement provided for the merchant agreement which specified the floor limit for sales not requiring authorization. The schedule is as under:
SCHEDULE
TO THE GRINDLAYS BANK MERCHANT AGREEMENT
1. FLOOR LIMIT: The floor limit for sales not requiring authorization is given below:
Floor limit Classic : Rs. 16,000/- (local visa cardholder)
Classic: US$ 1,200/-(international visa cardholder)
Premier: US$ 1,500/-
The floor limit may be changed at any time by written notice from the bank which notice will be effective on receipt
11. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act 1971 has no application on the facts and circumstance of the case.
12. Public Premises Act, 1971 has been enacted to provide for speedy machinery for eviction of person in unauthorized occupation of the public premises. The object of the Act is to secure the objective of eviction of the unauthorized occupants from the 'public premises. Section 7 of the Act provides for the recovery of arrears of rent or damages in respect of the public premises from persons who are in unauthorized occupation thereof.
13. To invoke the provisions of the Public Premises Act, it should be shown that the property in question falls within the term 'public premises' as defined under the Act and that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the same and unless that is done the estate officer cannot assume jurisdiction and proceed to make orders.
14. Section 2(e) and 2(g) which defines 'public premises' and 'unauthorized occupation' under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 are as under:
2. Definitions
.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -----
(a) 'corporate authority' means-----
(i) any company or Corporation referred to in Sub-clause (1), or
(ii) the Corporation or any committee or the Authority referred to in Sub-clause (2), of Clause (e) of this section;
(b) 'estate officer' means an officer appointed as such by the Central Government under Section 3;
(c) 'premises' means any land or any building or part of a building and includes,
(i) the garden, grounds and outhouses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of a building, and
(ii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof;
(d) 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(e) 'public premises' means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes-----
(1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of-----
(i) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) in which not less than fifty-one per cent of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government; and
(ii) any Corporation (not being a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or a local authority) established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government; and
(2) in relation to the Union territory of Delhi-----
(i) any premises belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or any municipal committee or notified area committee, and
(ii) any premises belonging to the Delhi Development Authority whether such premises are in the possession of, or leased out by, the said Authority;
(f) 'rent', in relation to any public premises, means the consideration payable periodically for the authorised occupation of the premises, and includes-----
(i) any charge for electricity, water or any other services in connection with the occupation of the premises.
(ii) any tax (by whatever name called) payable in respect of the premises, where such charge or tax is payable by the Central Government or the corporate authority;
(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.
Therefore, Section 2(g') 'unauthorized 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.
15. Section 7 of the Public Premises Act, 1971 is as under:
7. Power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises
.-(1) Where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the estate officer may, by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such Installments as may be specified in the order.
(2) Where any person is, or has at any time been, in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by order, require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such Installments as may be specified in the order.
(3) No order under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) shall be made against any person until after the issue of a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why such order should not be made, and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same, have been considered by the estate officer.
On plain reading of Section 7 of the Public Premises Act it is evident that it provides for a summary procedure for the recovery of the arrears of rent or damages from an unauthorized occupant of the pubic premises. Section 7(1) provides for the procedure to recover the arrears of rent from any person who is in arrears of rent payable in respect of the public premises. Section 7(2) prescribes to recover damages from any person who is or has at any time been in unauthorized occupation of public premises.
16. thereforee a notice under Section 7 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 for payment of arrears of rent can be issued to a person who is in unauthorized occupation of the public premises. Perusal of the notice dated 8.6.1994 issued by the Estate Officer reflects that the notice was issued demanding payment of arrears of rent due along with simple interest in respect of the premises, Ashoka Hotel, 50-B Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021, as mentioned in the schedule of the notice. It has been strongly contended by the petitioner that they have no relation whatsoever with the premises and that the petitioner bank was neither in occupation/possession of the said premises nor do they carry on there business transactions from there. In fact it is the office of respondent No. 3, which is situated at the address mentioned in the schedule of the Act which fact has not been disputed.
17. There was also no specific allegation with regard to the unauthorized occupation of the public premises by the petitioner since 1989 in the application under Section 7 moved by the respondent No. 2 & 3 before the Estate Officer for issuance of notice nor was it argued during the course of proceedings before the court.
18. When an application is filed before the Estate Officer his primary jurisdiction is to decide whether it is a fit case for ordering payment of arrears of rent or damages and if the answer is in affirmative, a notice under the Section 7(3) of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is issued. In the case in hand the petitioner bank was not in occupation of the public premises as mentioned in the schedule of the notice and thereforee the question as to whether the occupation of the premises is authorized or unauthorized need not be answered as the same is extraneous. Further nothing has been placed on record by the respondent to show that the petitioner was ever in occupation of the premises and any rent whatsoever was due from them. From the correspondences exchanged between the petitioner and the respondents, which is filed with the Writ petition, it is evident that no allegation whatsoever has been raised by the respondents about the unauthorized occupation of the public premises and any rent which is due there from. Even in application before the Estate Officer the respondents sought orders for recovery of amount as arrears of land revenue for wrongfully withholding the payment due to the respondents and there is no specific allegation that the petitioners have become liable to pay arrears of rent because they were in unauthorized occupation of the public premises.
19. The respondent No. 2 under the provisions of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 can not seek recovery of any money which is allegedly due from the petitioner to the respondents. A money decree for any amount other than on account of unauthorized occupation of a person is undoubtedly barred by law, impermissible and beyond the scope and ambit of Public Premises Act (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act 1971. Money Recovery suit cannot be instituted by resorting to Section 7 of the Public Premises Act, 1971. If any money is due to the respondent No. 2 & 3 from the petitioner, the appropriate remedy is a civil suit and appropriate forum is a civil Court rather then proceedings before the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act which is a special remedy to secure the objective of speedy eviction of the unauthorized occupants from the 'public premises' by way of a summary procedure.
20. The petitioner is not an unauthorized occupant of the public premises for the purposes of Section 7 of the Public Premises Act, 1971 and consequently the jurisdiction of the Estate officer can not be invoked. In the facts and circumstances no order for payment of arrears of rent in respect of the public premises can be made against the petitioner for recovery of alleged amount on account of other transaction between the petitioner and the respondents and thereforee the Estate officer erred in issuing notice under the Section 7 of the Public Premises Act, 1971 which is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
21. For these reasons rule is made absolute and the writ petition is allowed and the notice issued by the estate officer under Section 7 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is quashed. Parties are however, left to bear their own costs.