Proceedings For Eviction Under Rent Control Act, Transfer Of Property Act Precedes Proceeding U/s. 4 & 7 Of Public Premises Act: Calcutta HC

While reaffirming that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 overrides the provisions of the Rent Control law and the Transfer of Property Act, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the proceedings initiated by LIC under Section 4 of the 1971 Act.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed that “The LIC is justified in contending that the question as to the jural relationship between the parties and as to whether the petitioners were unauthorized occupants within the contemplation of the 1971 Act, in any event, are to be decided by the Estate Officer in the pending proceedings”.

Advocate Arindam Banerjee appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Debajyoti Basu appeared for the Respondent.

In a nutshell, the Petitioners had challenged a proceeding under Sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, and had also put up a plea for quashing the said proceeding. Admittedly, the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC)-first respondent, issued a letter asking the first Petitioner to vacate the disputed premises on the expiry of August 31, 2003. Subsequently, there was correspondence between the parties in respect of increase in the monthly rent, followed by the LIC initiating a proceeding under Section 4 of the 1971 Act, which was subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter, a suit was filed against the Petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner from subletting, transferring, assigning and/or carrying out any work of construction. In the suit, the temporary injunction application filed by the Respondent was dismissed. However, the respondent-LIC issued further notices and instituted a proceeding u/s 4 and 7. The Petitioner filed an application before the Estate Officer asking for cancellation of the orders passed in the proceeding for eviction and damages, challenging the authority of the previous Estate Officer.

Noting the admitted fact position that a notice to quit was issued on July 31, 20003 and even giving a go-bye to the prior eviction proceeding which was withdrawn and/or the suit filed by the LIC for different reliefs, the High Court observed that the relief for eviction and damages available to the LIC with regard to public premises lies squarely under the 1971 Act.

Regarding the Respondent’s contention regarding the applicability of the 1997 Act, the High Court explained that “The LIC being a public authority, the premises-in question are public premises, thereby ruling out the applicability of the 1997 Act, which is the governing Rent Control law in West Bengal, and bolstering applicability of the 1971 Act.”

Referring to various judgments, the Bench held that the 1971 Act overrides the provisions of the Rent Control law and the Transfer of Property Act insofar as the zone of operation of the 1971 Act is concerned, and hence, it would be specious to argue that a full-fledged proceeding for eviction under either the Rent Control Act or the Transfer of Property Act is to precede the initiation of a proceeding under Sections 4 and 7 of the 1971 Act.

The Bench further observed that the quit notice issued on July 31, 2003, was sufficient to determine the jural relationship previously existing between the parties, as the Petitioners had failed to show undisputedly that there was a subsequent jural relationship between the parties after the expiry of the previous lease.

“Mere negotiations regarding increase of rent, which never attained finality, could not be termed, by any stretch of imagination, as a further tenancy/lease between the parties”, added the Bench.

As per the Bench, the LIC acted squarely in terms of the 1971 Act and the Rules framed under the same, and the Petitioners participated in the proceeding before the Estate Officer by filing written objection and adducing evidence and thereafter couldn’t be permitted to challenge the proceedings, to which they themselves submitted.

Thus, the Bench concluded that the Respondents had acted fully within their jurisdiction in conducting the proceedings under Sections 4 and 7 of the 1971 Act against the Petitioners and thus, there was no scope of interference in the writ petition.

Cause Title: Dalhousie Exchange and Anr. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

Click here to read/download Judgment