Lasco Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- ashim kumar banerjee, j.1. this revisional application calls for an interpretation of section 4 of the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said act of 1971). the said provision is reproduced below:4. issue of notice of show-cause against order of eviction.-(1) if the estate officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the estate officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made.(2) the notice shall-(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises,-(i) to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than seven days from the date of issue thereof; and(ii) to appear before the estate officer on the date specified in the notice along with the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown, and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired.(3) the estate officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned.facts of the case:2. the revisional applicant was a tenant under the life insurance corporation of india (hereinafter referred to as lic), a central government organisation in respect of the premises nos. 1 and 3, brabourne road, calcutta. dispute arose with regard to enhancement of rent. the applicant refused to pay the enhanced rent. since lic did not accept the rent at the old rate the applicant stopped paying rent science may, 1997. a notice under section 4 of the said act of 1971 was served upon the applicant. the applicant replied to the show-cause notice dated july 17, 2003 on august 2, 2005. the estate officer upon receipt of the reply directed the applicant to file evidence on affidavit by august 29, 2005. on that date the matter could not be taken up in absence of the presiding officer. the matter was again fixed on september 20, 2005 when petitioner field an application before the estate officer, inter alia, asking for a direction upon the lic to disclose evidence first before the applicant could be asked to lead evidence. such application was disposed of by the estate officer on september 20, 2005 by observing that identical issue had already been decided by the high court in c. o. no. 283 of 2005. relying on the said decision the estate officer asked the applicant to lead evidence first. the order of the estate officer dated september 20, 2005 was challenged in this revisional application which was heard by me on the abovementioned dates.analysis of section 4:3. on perusal of the section quoted (supra) it would appear that the estate officer was to first form an opinion to the extent that the person against whom the complain was lodged was in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that he should be evicted. once such formation of opinion was done the estate officer was to issue notice on such occupant to show-cause why order of eviction would not be passed against him. once such show-cause notice was issued it was the duty of the concerned occupant to reply to such show-cause notice on the date specified in the notice along with evidence which he intended to produce in support of the causes shown and also for personal hearing if such hearing was desired.scope of application of section 4 in the instant case:4. in the instant case admittedly the premises was a public premises within the meaning of the said act of 1971 as it belonged to the central government through the lic, alternatively the building belonged to the corporation set up by the statute. it was also not in dispute that the premises was under occupation of the applicant. the lic approached the estate officer with the grievance that the occupant was in default in making payment of rent since may, 1997 and as such they were liable to be evicted under the said act of 1971. the estate officer upon being satisfied of the aforesaid facts issued a notice to show cause under section 4 upon the applicant. hence, it was the duty of the applicant to reply to the said show-cause notice by showing cause why they should not be evicted. in support of such cause if they intended any evidence to be laid or any personal hearing was desired they would have to indicate the same. in the instant case the applicant was asked to lead evidence in support of the cause shown. there is no provision compelling the owner of the premises in question to lead evidence first under the said act of 1971.precedent:5. the identical issue was dealt with by asit kumar bisi, j. (as his lordship then was) in c. o. no. 283 of 2005. his lordship upon consideration of the facts and circumstances and the relevant law on the subject dismissed the revisional application by inter alia observing as follows:i have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions made by mr. roy on behalf of the petitioner and mr. das on behalf of the opposite party. it is well-settled that where the estate officer is of opinion that a person is in unauthorized occupation of the premises and issue a notice under section 4(1) of the said act to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made, it is not necessary for the estate officer to disclose in the notice any material on which he forms an opinion that the person concerned is in unauthorized occupation of the premises. the estate officer can form such opinion on the information received by him from any source and the occupant has the right to dispute the opinion or rebut the same in the course of hearing before the estate officer for which the notice is sent to him. it has been held in minoo framroze balsara (supra) at page 388 (para 34) that the provisions of section 4 make it clear that the addressee may seek a personal hearing from the estate officer and may lead evidence for the purpose of showing cause against the proposed order of eviction and this is clear also from the provisions of section 8 which vest in the estate officer the power of a civil court in regard to the summoning of witnesses and examining them on oath and the discovery and production of documents. it is noteworthy in this context that the said act has been enacted to provide for a speedy machinery to secure eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises and it confers the power to pass an order for eviction of an unauthorised occupant in a public premises on a designated officer and prescribes the procedure to be followed by the said officer prior to passing the order of eviction against the unauthorized occupant. the said act is a special statute which relates to eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises. it is not a general enactment. reference can be made in this context to the decision of the supreme court in ashoka marketing ltd. and anr. v. punjab national bank and ors. : [1990]3scr649 .6. i am told that an application for review is pending against his lordship's decision. the same is now being heard by another learned single judge.argument advanced by the petitioner:7. the learned counsel appearing in support of the application contended before me that under the code of civil procedure the plaintiff had to discharge his onus in an ordinary eviction proceeding. such principle would also apply in the instant case. he contended that it was incumbent upon the lic to prove that the revisional applicant was an unauthorized occupant within the meaning of the said act of 1971 and notice under section 4 was duly served upon him. unless such onus was discharged there was no occasion for the applicant to lead evidence in support of the causes shown by him in reply to the notice to show cause. various provisions of the indian evidence act, 1872 were also relied upon.precedent relied upon by the petitioner:8. the learned counsel also referred to the english decision in the case of r. v. westminister (city) london borough rent officer, ex parte rendall reported in 1973, volume iii, all england law reports, page 119. this decision was relied on in support of interpretation of the word 'proceeding'. lord dening in his lordship's judgment held that the word 'proceeding' should cover any proceeding of a legal nature even though they do not take place in a court of law. relying on the said decision it was contended that although the estate officer was discharging his quasi-judicial function such proceeding should come within the scope of the provisions of the code of civil procedure as well as indian evidence act, 1872.scope of application of code of civil procedure:9. section 8 of the said act of 1971 empowers the estate officer to apply code of civil procedure in the matter of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, requiring the discovery and proof of documents and any other matter which may be prescribed. assuming this would cover leading of evidence even then the 'proceeding' before the estate officer has to be interpreted, in my view, from the scope of section 4 of the said act of 1971 itself. section 4 clearly provides for formation of opinion by the estate officer firstly as to whether prima facie case of eviction of a public premises is made out by the complainant or not. formation of opinion by the estate officer was not under challenge before me. such formation of opinion was never questioned by the applicant. in any event, there is a clear distinction between the instant proceeding and a regular eviction suit where the plaintiff is to discharge his primary onus to establish a prima facie case of eviction and for that he has to lead evidence first. such stage is not prevalent in the instant type of proceeding as the formation of opinion as done ex parte by the estate officer under the provisions of section 4 before issuance of the notice under the said provision. once a notice is given it is the responsibility of the occupant to have the said notice discharged by showing sufficient cause before the estate officer and if he so think fit he is entitled to lead evidence in support of his contention in reply to the show-cause. it is rather an opportunity given to the occupant following the principles of natural justice so that he is not evicted without having any opportunity to explain his conduct and offer his explanation to resist such order of eviction.conclusion:10. i do not find any force in the contention of the applicant.11. i also respectfully agree with the observation made by his lordship in c. o. no. 283 of 2005.result:12. hence, the revisional application fails and is hereby dismissed.13. there would be, however, no order as to costs.14. urgent xerox certified copy would be given to the parties, if applied for.