Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC628; JT2001(4)SC430; (2002)10SCC406
..... an order of eviction after having found that respondent no. 4 is an unauthorised occupant. subsequently, the ..... deed provided that on a notice being given, the lessee would vacate the premises. subsequently, the state of jammu and kashmir determined the lease and asked the lessee to vacate the premises. on 16-5-1973 the estate officer proceeded against respondent no. 4 for eviction under the j. & k. public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act. the estate officer after hearing respondent no. 4 passed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(1)SC152; 1996(9)SCALE416; (1997)2SCC62; [1996]Supp10SCR205
1. this appeal is by the state of u.p. as they failed to get an order of eviction against first respondent rup lal shrama - a retired government servants from a government quarter as per the provisions of u.p. public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants act. 1972 (for short the act.)2. admitted facts are; rup lal sharma was ..... section 5 of the act. on 22.3.1978, the prescribed authority passed an order of eviction dismissing the application by observing that 'it is not possible to hold that the house in question is public premises or that the opposite party is an unauthorised occupant of it.' after the said order, the appellant sent notice to ..... 1978 particularly because there is a finding in that order that the building belongs to government estate. from any view of the matter the building in question is public premises. it is unfortunate that first respondent was allowed to continue as an 'unauthorised occupant' in government partners for nearly a decade now after he ceased to be .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(4)ALLMR204; 2006(4)BomCR258; 2006(3)MhLj700
..... of india, provisions of the bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rates control act, 1947 (for short 'the bombay rent act') would prevail over the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act. the contentions raised by the appellant were rejected by the high court and the validity of the act was upheld. while upholding ..... was a composite application. insofar as reference case no. 194 of 1992 is concerned, it was allowed and the order of eviction passed under section 5(1) of the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971 (for short, 'the act') in proforma 'b' was maintained in appeal by the learned principal judge. however ..... the government company or corporation must not act as private landlords and their act while terminating authority to occupy public premises and seeking eviction of the occupant therefrom must be informed by reason and guided by the public interest. according to mr. sakhardande, the impugned notice dated 19-8-1970 does not indicate as to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1997Guj106; (1997)1GLR177
..... section 4 of the central act of 1959 does not provide category of authorised occupants of public premises, which is evident from the comparison of the two provisions given below:guj arat public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1972 public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act 1959 section 4section 4'4(i) if the competent officer ..... 4 cannot be initiated.8a. the short question which falls for consideration is:'whether a show cause notice under section 4 of the gujarat public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1972, is required to be preceded by notice to show cause that the person is in unauthorised possession.' section ..... due and payable under the agreement entered into between into between the housing board and the allottees, the competent officer appointed under the gujarat public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the gujarat act of 1972') issued notice to the allottees calling upon them .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1980Delhi329
..... tenant. on the other hand, we have the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971. which retrospectively succeeds the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1958, the object of which is to distinguish public premises from other premises and to enable the owners of public premises to evict unauthorised occupants there from by an expeditious procedure and ..... of the petitioner and thereby render the petitioner as unauthorised occupant within the definition of 'unauthorised occupant' in section 2(g) of the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971 the proper forum is the estate officer and the appellate authority is the district judge. it would not ..... to urge in such a proceeding before the controller that the jurisdiction of the controller is taken away by some other act like the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971, in which the definition of ''rent' is different from the definition of rent in the delhi rent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1993Guj5; (1992)1GLR79
..... against the order dated may 30, 1987 passed by the district judge, bhavnagar in various appeals filed before him under section 9 of the gujarat public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the public premises act').2. the facts giving rise to the present controversy may now be shortly stated.'the petitioner is a 'board' i.e. the housing board ..... in view of passing of the gujarat public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1972 and particularly in view of section 19 of the said act, the bombay government premises (eviction) act, 1955 and 'any other corresponding law providing for the eviction of occupants from public premises', stood repealed. thus, the corresponding provisions pertaining to eviction of the persons from the board premises under the provisions of the gujarat housing .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2003Raj266; RLW2004(2)Raj749; 2003(3)WLC704
..... out by the majority judgment in northern india caterers (p) ltd.'s case (air 1967 sc 1581) (supra) led to the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1958 being replaced by public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971 which was given retrospective operation from the date of the 1958 act and barred the jurisdiction of civil ..... of the same category or genus. thus, the words 'or officers of equivalent rank of statutory authority' used in clause (a) of section 3 of the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971 are of the same category as the words 'gazetted officers of the govt.' which precede the same and have to be ..... in accounting & secretarial services pvt. ltd. v. union of india, air 1993 cal. 102. in that case, the validity of section 3 of the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971 was challenged on the ground that it does not lay down any qualification of estate officer and leaves the matter entirely to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1997Bom57; 1997(1)BomCR428; (1996)98BOMLR550; 1997(2)MhLj632
..... order dated 22nd december, 1995 passed by the 2nd respondent, under the provisions of the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1971 (the said eviction act for short), requiring the petitioner and all other persons who may be in occupation of the premise viz., a flat being flat no. 6 on the 2nd floor of patankar building at ..... issuance of the show cause notice. the prima facie satisfaction must be two-fold, firstly, that the addressee is in unauthorised occupation of public premises, and, secondly, that he should be evicted. we have no quarrel with the said decision. the quarrel we have is qua the submission made by mrs. purohit to the effect ..... a reply was sent by the petitioner on 25th july, 1990. an order of eviction under the provisions of the said eviction act happened to be passed on 27th november, 1990 inter alia stating that she was in unauthorised occupation of public premises and that she should vacate the same. an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR289; 2009(111)BomLR1110
..... no other contentions other than dealt herein were raised at this stage, it is also appropriate for this court to observe that the public premises eviction act provides for summary eviction of unauthorised occupant as against this the petitioner got much better opportunity before the court of small cause to contest subject suit and that ..... that the estate officer was appointed during the pendency of appeal and therefore, the amending act did not provide forum till disposal of suit. hence, public premises eviction act was not application to the suit. he placed reliance on the division bench judgment of this court in the case of raje vyankatrao jagjiwanrao ..... india and ors. : air2006sc2544 .11. mr. sanglikar submits that the special law would prevail over general law. as a consequence he submits that the public premises eviction act would prevail over existing small cause court act. in his submission both the courts below have committed manifest error in rejecting the contention leading to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR2506
..... ., has presented this petition, praying for quashing the order of the additional city civil and sessions judge, bangalore and appellate authority under the provisions of the public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act 1971 (hereinafter for short called the 'act'), dismissing the respondent's appeal and confirming the order of the competent authority and the ..... by the division bench in the indian bank case? the question of bona fide use of the owner of the public premises or hardship that is likely to be caused to the tenant by eviction are matters which are not relevant to the proceedings under the act. as pointed out in the indian bank case, ..... for taking action against a person in unauthorised occupation of a public premises after the expiry of the lease period. taking action against unauthorised occupant cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary.10. the fourth contention of the petitioner is that action for eviction taken by the bank is discriminatory for the reason that .....
Tag this Judgment!