Dismissed

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. the Honkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2007CRA/137/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the Bombay High Court held that a government company is a public sector undertaking. Consequently, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act does not apply to its premises. The Court further ruled that the Public Premises Eviction Act does not bar Small Causes Court jurisdiction over eviction suits against such undertakings.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision application was dismissed; the Small Causes Court decree was upheld. Execution of the decree was stayed for eight weeks.

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs the Honkong… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 :: 1 ::

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

 APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.137 OF 2006

¶5

 The United India Insurance Co.Ltd. .. Petitioner

¶6

 versus

¶7

 The Honkong & Shanghai Banking
 Corporation Ltd. .. Respondent

¶8

 Mr.V.Y. Sanglikar for the petitioner.

¶9

 Mr.R.A. Kapadia with P.D. Gandhy i/b Maneksha &

¶10

 Sethna for the respondent.

¶11

 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK,J.

¶12

 DATED : 6th March 2007.

¶13

ORAL JUDGEMENT:-

¶14

 1. This civil revision application was heard
 by me in September 2006. However on account of

¶15

 :: 2 ::

¶16

 change of the roaster, the petition was made de
 part-heard. Thereafter, by an order of the Hon’ble
 the Acting Chief Justice, it has been re-assigned to
 me. I have again heard the counsel for the parties.

¶17

 2. The facts lie in a narrow compass and are
 mostly undisputed. The respondent is an owner of
 the property known as Mercantile Chambers situate at
 Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai 400 001. The premises
 admeasuring 5759 sq.ft. situate at 3rd floor
 thereof (hereinafter referred to as "the suit
 premises") were let out by the respondent to the
 petitioner several years ago. Though the tenancy of
 the petitioner was terminated by a notice to quit
 dated 17th October 1992, it continued in occupation
 of the suit premises by reason of the protection
 against eviction enjoyed by the tenants under the
 Bombay Rents & Lodging Houses Rates Control Act 1947
 (for short "the Bombay Rent Act") On repeal of the
 Bombay Rent Act by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act
 1999 (for short "Maharashtra Rent Act), the
 respondent again served on the petitioner a notice
 to quit dated 11th January 2001. On the
 petitioner’s failure to vacate the premises the
 respondent filed a suit, bearing T.E & R. Suit

¶18

 :: 3 ::

¶19

 238/252 of 2001, against the petitioner for eviction
 in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The respondent
 pleaded that the petitioner was a statutory
 corporation and also a government company registered
 under the Companies Act, 1956 having a paid up
 capital of more than rupees one crore and therefore
 the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Act were not
 applicable to the suit premises let out to it. The
 tenancy of the petitioner was duly terminated and
 therefore the respondent had no right to continue in
 occupation of the suit premises. It further pleaded
 that under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes
 Court Act,1882 the Small Causes Court had the
 jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. By
 filing a written statement, the petitioner contested
 the suit. The petitioner admitted receipt of the
 notice to quit. It also admitted in the written
 statement, though before me it is it is contended
 that the admission is erroneous and is not binding
 on it, that the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent
 Act were not applicable to the suit premises. The
 petitioner however contended that it was a public
 sector undertaking and the suit premises were public
 premises as defined under section 2(e) of the Public
 Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,

¶20

 :: 4 ::

¶21

 1971 {for short "the Public Premises Eviction Act"}
 and therefore, the estate office appointed under the
 Act alone had the jurisdiction to pass an order of
 eviction and the Small Causes Court and no
 jurisdiction to try the suit.

¶22

 3. After consideration of the evidence adduced
 before it, the trial court held that the provisions
 of Maharashtra Rent Act were not applicable to the
 suit premises as the petitioner was a public limited
 company having a share capital of more than rupees
 one crore. It also held that under section 41(1) of
 the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 it had
 the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. It
 accordingly passed a decree for possession as also
 for the arrears of rent/mesne profits. On appeal
 the decision was confirmed by the appellate bench of
 the Small Causes Court by its judgement and order
 dated 4th May 2006. That judgement is impugned in
 this revision petition.

¶23

 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly
 submitted that the provisions of the Maharashtra
 Rent Act were applicable to the suit premises. The
 petitioner was a government company which could

¶24

 :: 5 ::

¶25

 neither be considered as a private limited company
 nor a public limited company. Government companies
 form a separate class by themselves. They are
 neither private limited companies nor public limited
 companies and therefore, the exemption from its
 applicability granted under sub-section (1) of
 section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent Act to private
 limited and public limited companies having paid up
 capital of more than rupees one crore was not
 applicable to the premises let out to a Government
 Company. In order to appreciate the contention of
 the petitioner, it would be appropriate to quote
 sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent
 Act which reads thus:

¶26

 3(1) This Act shall not apply

¶27

 (a) to any premises belonging to the
 Government or a local authority or apply
 as against the Government to any
 tenancy, licence or other like
 relationship created by a grant from a
 licence given by the Government in
 respect of premises requisitioned or
 taken on lease or on licence by the
 Government, including any premises taken
 on behalf of the Government on the basis
 of tenancy or of licence or other like
 relationship by, or in the name of any
 officer subordinate to the Government
 authorised in this behalf; but it shall
 apply in respect of premises let, or
 given on licence, to the Government or a
 local authority or taken on behalf of

¶28

 :: 6 ::

¶29

 the Government on such basis by, or in
 the name of, such officer;

¶30

 (b) to any premises let or sub-let
 to banks, or any Public Sector
 Undertakings or any Corporation
 established by or under any Central or
 State Act, or foreign missions,
 international agencies, multinational
 companies, and private limited companies
 and public limited companies having a
 paid up share capital of rupees one
 crore or more.

¶31

 Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the
 Maharashtra Rent Act says that it shall not apply to
 any premises let out or sublet to banks or any
 public sector undertakings or any corporation
 established by or any other central or state Act, or
 foreign missions, international agencies,
 multi-national companies and private limited
 companies and public limited companies having a paid
 up share capital of more than rupees one crore.
 Counsel submitted that exemption from the provisions
 of Maharashtra Rent Act was granted only in respect
 of the premises let or sublet to private limited
 companies and public limited companies having paid
 up share capital of more than rupees one crore. He
 submitted that the exemption was not applicable in
 respect of premises let or sublet to government
 companies irrespective of the amount of their

¶32

 :: 7 ::

¶33

 capital. Government companies formed a separate
 class by themselves. The expression "government
 companies" is not mentioned in clause (b) of
 sub-section (1) of section 3 and this omission of
 "government companies" cannot be filled up by the
 court by supplying the missing words - a casus
 omissus. In support, the learned counsel for the
 petitioner referred to and relied upon three
 decisions of the Supreme Court in i) State of
 Jharkhand Vs. Govind Singh reported in AIR 2005
 S.C.294 (ii) Sangeeta Singh Vs. Union of India
 reported in AIR 2005 SC 4459 and (iii) Hindustan
 Steel Works Construction Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
 reported in (1998) 2 Co.L.J. 383.

¶34

 5. In State of Jharkhand Vs. Govind Singh
 (supra) the Supreme Court held when the words of a
 statute are clear, plain or unambiguous i.e. they
 are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the
 courts are bound to give effect to that meaning
 irrespective of the consequences. The intention of
 the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the
 language used, which means that attention should be
 paid to what has been said as also to what has not
 been said. In para 15 of the decision the court

¶35

 :: 8 ::

¶36

 further said that when the words were clear and

¶37

 there was no obsecurity, no ambiguity and the
 intention of the Legislature was clearly conveyed
 there was no scope for the Court to innovate or take
 upon itself the task of amending or altering the
 statutory provision.

¶38

 6. In Sangeeta Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
 (supra) the Supreme Court held that while
 interpreting a statutory provision the Court only
 interprets the law and cannot legislate it. The
 legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by
 judicial interpretative process (see para 9 of the
 decision). The Court further held that under the
 first principle a casus omissus cannot be supplied
 by the court except in the case of clear necessity
 and when reason for it is found in the four corners
 of the statute itself but at the same time a casus

¶39

 omissus should not be readily inferred; for that
 purpose all the parts of a statute or section must
 be construed together and every clause of a section
 should be construed with reference to the context
 and other clauses thereof so that the construction
 put on a particular provision makes consistent
 enactment of the whole statute.

¶40

 :: 9 ::

¶41

 7. In Hindustan Steel Works Construction
 Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (Supra) the question
 that arose for consideration of the Supreme Court
 was whether the appellant therein, which was a
 government company wholly owned and controlled by
 the Central Government,was excluded from the purview
 of the Kerala Construction Works Welfare Funds Act
 1989 on the ground that having regard to the deep
 and pervasive control of the appellate company by
 the Central Government the appellate company was
 essentially an establishment or an institution of
 the Government of India. The Supreme Court held
 that merely because there was deep and pervasive
 control of the government over the appellate
 company, and the appellate company on such account
 may be an institutionality or agency of the central
 government and as such a State within the meaning of
 Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it could
 not be held to be a department or establishment of
 the government in all cases. The Welfare Funds Act
 was essentially an Act to protect the interest of

¶42

 welfare of the labourers. Unless the
 institutionality or agency of the government was
 expressly kept outside the purview of the Act, it

¶43

 :: 10 ::

¶44

 would not be proper to interprete the Act by
 removing the corporate veil so as to exclude the
 appellate company from the purview of the Act.

¶45

 8. Relying upon the aforementioned decisions
 counsel for the petitioner submitted that clause(b)
 of sub-section (1) of section 3 excludes only the
 premises let or sublet to private limited companies
 and public limited companies having a paid up share
 capital of more than rupees one crore from the
 purview of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The
 omission to mention government companies in clause
 (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 was intentional.
 The omission cannot not be filled by the court. He
 submitted that government companies formed a class
 apart and since they were not mentioned in clause
 (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 the premises let
 or sublet to them were not excluded from the purview
 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Counsel also
 invited my attention to clause (a) of sub-section
 (1) of section 3 the first part of which says that
 the Rent Act shall not apply to the premises
 belonging to the government, local authority; and
 the second of it part says that it (the Act) would
 apply in respect of the premises let or given on

¶46

 :: 11 ::

¶47

 licence to the government or a local authority or
 taken on behalf of the government on such basis. If
 therefore, the counsel submitted, the Legislature
 wanted to exclude the premises let or sublet to the
 government companies also from the applicability of
 the Rent Act, the Legislature would have so provided
 by expressly including "government companies" either
 in the first part of clause (a) or in clause (b) of
 sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent
 Act.

¶48

 9. The submission, attractive as it looks at
 the first blush, cannot be accepted. Section 3 of
 the Companies Act defines the words "existing
 company" "private company" and "public company".
 "Company" means a company formed and registered
 under the Companies Act. "Existing company" means
 company formed and registered under any of the
 earlier Companies Acts which were enacted before the
 Companies Act 1956. "Private company" (as it stood
 on 31st March 2000, when the Maharshtra Rent Control
 Act came into force) means a company which restricts
 the rights of the members of transferring its shares
 and limits the number of members to 50 (excluding
 certain categories of members) and which prohibits

¶49

 :: 12 ::

¶50

 invitation to the public to subscribe to any shares
 or debentures of the company. "Public company" (as
 it stood on the date of the commencement of the
 Maharashtra Rent Act) means a company which is not a
 private company. In other words, public companies
 are residuary class of companies and all companies
 which are not private companies are regarded as
 public companies. A government company would also
 has to fall under any of the two categories, it has
 to be either a private company or a public company.
 No third class of limited companies (excluding
 companies where liability of members is limited by
 guarantee or companies registered under section 25
 of the Companies Act) is contemplated under the
 Companies Act. The amendment of the section 3 of
 the Companies Act effected by companies Amendment
 Act of 2000, also does not appear to have changed
 this position. However, it is not necessary to
 express any opinion about the effect of amendment
 2000 as the same does not fall for consideration in
 this revision petition. As any government company
 also has to be either a private company or a public
 company, it was not necessary for the legislature to
 separately say in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
 section 3 that the Maharashtra Rent Act would not

¶51

 :: 13 ::

¶52

 apply to the government companies having the paid up
 capital of more than rupees one crore. A government
 company having a paid up capital of more than rupees
 one crore could only be a private limited or a
 public limited company and the premises let or
 sublet to it would be covered by the exemption under
 sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent
 Act.

¶53

 10. Assuming however, that government companies
 form a class apart and a government company would
 neither be a private limited company nor a public
 limited company but a different class by itself
 still, in my view, the provisions of Maharashtra
 Rent Act are not applicable to the suit premises in
 view of the fact it does not apply to the premises
 let or sub-let to public sector undertakings.
 Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3
 specifically provides that the Maharashtra Rent Act
 shall not apply to the premises let or sub-let to
 banks or any public sector undertakings or any
 corporation established by or under any central or
 state Act. Maharashtra Rent Act does not define the
 expression "public sector undertakings". Counsel
 for the petitioner submitted that the expression

¶54

 :: 14 ::

¶55

 "public sector undertakings" is also not defined in
 any other law. In view of the fact that the
 expression "public sector undertakings" has not been
 defined in the Maharashtra Rent Act or any other
 relevant law, the expression must be given the
 meaning as is commonly understood. The test applied
 in excise law that the words of common parlance must
 be given the meaning ascribed to them by a common
 man would equally apply for interpreting the meaning
 of the expression "public sector undertakings".
 Common man considers the corporations owned or
 controlled by the central or the state government as
 public sector undertakings. A corporation or a
 company whose entire or majority of the share
 capital is held and owned by the government or any
 organ or instrumentality of the government is
 regarded as a public sector undertaking by the
 common man. In my view, that is a common meaning of
 the phrase "public sector undertakings". A
 difficulty may arise in respect of the

¶56

 private-public joint ventures wherein 50% capital is
 held by private individuals or entities and the
 balance 50% of the share capital is held by the
 government or government entities. Some men may
 call it a private sector, some may call it a public

¶57

 :: 15 ::

¶58

 sector and others may call it a private public
 partnerships. However, that controversy does not
 arise in the present case as the entire share
 capital of the petitioner is held by General
 Insurance Corporation whose entire paid up capital
 in turn was held by the Central Government. Learned
 counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
 General Insurance Corporation has since transferred
 the entire share capital to the Government of India
 and the entire share capital of the petitioner
 company is presently held by the Central Government.
 The petitioner is thus not only a government company
 i.e. to say the company in which more than 50% of
 the share capital is held by the government but is a
 company whose entire share capital is held by the
 Central Government and in the past was held by the
 General Insurance Corporation, a wholly owned
 corporation of the Central Government. Thus, the
 petitioner is clearly a public sector undertaking
 within the meaning of clause (b) of sub-section (1)
 of section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent Act. Being a
 public sector undertaking the premises let to it are
 exempt from the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Act.

¶59

 11. Learned counsel for the respondent invited

¶60

 :: 16 ::

¶61

 my attention to para 10 of the written statement
 wherein the petitioner has specifically averred that
 it is a public sector undertaking. It is true that
 an admission of law which is mistaken and
 essentially regarding the law or interpretation of a
 legal provision or a phrase may not entirely bind a
 party to the admission. However, it would certainly
 be an indicator of how the parties understood the
 meaning of the expression "public sector
 undertakings". The petitioner understood the phrase
 "public sector undertaking" to mean a Company, a
 corporation or an undertaking owned by the
 Government. This understanding of the meaning of
 the phrase by the petitioner is in consonance with

¶62

 the understanding of the common man. The
 petitioner, in my view, is a public sector

¶63

 undertaking and hence the premises let out to it are
 exempt from the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Act.

¶64

 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner then
 submitted that the Small Causes Court had no

¶65

 jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit relating
 to eviction of the petitioner from the suit
 premises. He submitted that suits relating to
 possession of an immovable property could not be

¶66

 :: 17 ::

¶67

 tried by the Small Causes Court. He submitted that
 the suit premises being in lawful possession of the
 petitioner, which was a government company, were
 public premises within the meaning of section 2(e)
 of the Public Premises Eviction Act. A suit for
 possession of such public premises is barred by
 section 15 of the Public Premises Eviction Act and
 any action for eviction of the petitioner could only
 be instituted before the Estate Officer. In my view
 the contention has no merit and deserves to be
 rejected for the reasons indicated below:

¶68

 13. Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes
 Act, 1882 reads as under:-

¶69

 41 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained
 elsewhere in this Act but subject to the
 provisions of sub-section (2), the Court of
 Small Causes shall have jurisdiction to
 entertain and try all suits and proceedings
 between a licensor and licensee, or a
 landlord and tenant, relating to the
 recovery of possession of any immovable
 property situated in Greater Bombay, or
 relating to the recovery of the licence fee
 or charges or rent therfor, irrespective of
 the value of the subject matter of such
 suits or proceedings.

¶70

 (2) Nothing contained in sub-section
 (1) shall apply to suits or proceedings for
 recovery of possession of any immovable
 property, or of licence fee or charges or
 rent thereof, to which the provisions of

¶71

 :: 18 ::

¶72

 Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates
 Control Act, 1947, the Bombay Government
 Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, the Bombay
 Municipal Corporation Act the Maharashtra
 Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 or
 any other law for the time being in force,
 apply."

¶73

 Sub-section (1) of section 41 provides that
 notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the
 Act, but subject to the provisions of sub-section
 (2), the Court of Small Causes Court would have
 jurisdiction to entertain and try all suits and
 proceedings between a licensor and a licensee or a
 landlord and a tenant, relating to the recovery of
 possession of any immovable property situate in
 Greater Bombay. Sub-section (2) is an exception to
 sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) of section 41
 provides that sub-section (1) would not apply to
 suits or proceedings for recovery of possession of
 any immovable property to which the provisions of
 the Bombay Rent Act, Bombay Government Premises
 (Eviction) Act, Bombay Municipal Corporation Act,
 Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act or any
 other law for the time being in force applied.
 Counsel submitted that the Public Premises Eviction
 Act was any other law for the time being in force
 and since the premises let out to the appellant fell

¶74

 :: 19 ::

¶75

 within the definition of "public premises" under
 section 2(e) of the Public Premises Eviction Act,
 sub-section (1) of section 41 of the Presidency
 Small Causes Act was not applicable by virtue of
 exemption carved out by sub-section (2) of the
 Presidency Small Causes Act. If the Public Premises
 Eviction Act is held to apply to the suit premises,
 sub-section (1) of section 41 of the Presidency
 Small Causes Court Act would not apply by reason of
 sub-section (2) thereof. In other words, if Public
 Premises Eviction Act applies to the suit premises,
 the proceedings for eviction cannot be instituted in
 the Small Causes Court under sub-section (1) of
 section 41 but would have to be instituted before
 the Estate Officer.

¶76

 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly
 relied upon the definition of "public premises"
 given in section 2(e) of the Public Premises
 Eviction Act which reads as under:-

¶77

 2(e) "public premises" means

¶78

 (1) any premises belonging to, or
 taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on
 behalf of, the Central Government, and
 includes any such premises which have been
 placed by that Government, whether before

¶79

 :: 20 ::

¶80

 or after the commencement of the Public
 Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
 Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980, under the
 control of the Secretariat of either House
 or Parliament for providing residential
 accommodation to any member of the staff
 of that Secretariat;

¶81

 (2) any premises belonging to, or
 taken on lease by, or on behalf of, -

¶82

 (i) any company as defined in section
 3 of the companies Act, 1956, in which not
 less than fifty one per cent, of the paid
 up share capital is held by the Central
 Government or any company which is a
 subsidiary (within the meaning of that
 Act) of the first mentioned company

¶83

 (ii) any corporation (not being a
 company as company as defined in section 3
 of the Companies Act, 1956 or a local
 authority) established by or under a
 Central Act and owned or controlled by the
 Central Government.

¶84

 (iii) any University established or
 incorporated by the Central Act.

¶85

 (iv) any Institute incorporated by the
 Institutes of Technology Act, 1961

¶86

 (v) any Board of Trustees constituted
 under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.

¶87

 (vi) the Bhakra Management Board
 constituted under section 79 of the Punjab
 Reorganisation Act, 1966 and that Board as
 and when re-named as the Bhakra-Baes
 Management Board under sub-section (6) of
 section 80 of that Act.

¶88

 (vii) any State Government or the
 Government of any Union Territory situated
 in the National Capital Territory of Delhi
 or in any other Union Territory.

¶89

 :: 21 ::

¶90

 (viii) any Cantonment Board constituted
 under the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of
 1924); and

¶91

 (3) in relation to the National
 Capital Territory of Delhi

¶92

 (i) any premises belonging to the
 Municipal Corporation of Delhi, or any
 municipal committee or notified area
 committee,

¶93

 (ii) any premises belonging to the
 Delhi Development Authority, whether such
 premises are in the possession of, or
 leased out by, the said Authority, and

¶94

 (iii) any premises belonging to or taken
 on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf
 of any State Government or the Government
 of any Union Territory.

¶95

 Clause (2) (ii) of section 2(e) of the Public
 Premises Act states that premises belonging to or
 taken on lease on behalf of any company owned or
 controlled by the Central Government would be public
 premises. Counsel submitted that since the entire
 share capital of the petitioner company was held by
 the Central Government the premises taken on rent by
 it were squarely covered by the definition of public
 premises under clause (2)(ii) of section 2(e) of the
 Public Premises Eviction Act. It is true that since

¶96

 the suit premises are let out to the petitioner
 which is a government company they would be public

¶97

 :: 22 ::

¶98

 premises under section 2(e) of the Public Premises
 Eviction Act. However, merely because a premises is
 a public premises does not mean that any eviction
 proceeding in respect of that premises is required
 to be taken under the Public Premises Eviction Act.
 Preamble to the Public Premises Eviction Act states
 that it is an Act to provide for eviction of
 unauthorised occupants from public premises and
 certain incidental matters. The Public Premises
 Eviction Act is enacted with a view of providing for

¶99

 easy procedure for eviction of persons in
 unauthorised occupation of the public premises. It
 is not enacted with a view of evicting the
 Government or Government Companies from the public
 premises or providing for easy procedure for
 eviction of Government or Government Companies in
 occupation of public premises (or premises of which
 they retain possession after termination of their
 tenancy). In Ashoka Marketing Ltd. Vs. Punjab
 National Bank reported in AIR 1991 SC 855, the
 Supreme Court has considered the meaning of public
 premises and the scope of its application of the
 Public Premises Eviction Act in relation to

¶100

 occupation by a tenant holding over and/or protected
 by a Rent Act. In paragraph no.63 of its decision,

¶101

 :: 23 ::

¶102

 the Supreme Court has observed :

¶103

 "This shows that the Public Premises
 Act has been enacted to deal with
 mischief of rampant unauthorised
 occupation of public premises by
 providing a speedy machinery for the
 eviction of persons in unauthorised
 occupation. In order to secure this
 object the said Act prescribed the
 time period for the various steps
 which are required to be taken for
 securing eviction of the persons in
 unauthorised occupation. The object
 underlying the enactment is to
 safeguard public interest by making
 available for public use premises
 belonging to Central Government,
 Companies in which the Central
 Government has substantial interest,
 Corporations owned or controlled by
 the Central Government and certain
 autonomous bodies and to prevent
 misuse of such premises."

¶104

 The object of Public Premises Eviction Act is to

¶105

 provide for a speedy procedure for eviction of
 persons who unauthorizedly occupy the public
 premises. The object of the Public Premises
 Eviction Act is not to provide a speedy remedy to
 private landlords for eviction of the Government or
 Government Companies from the premises let out to
 them and held by them after termination of the
 tenancy by having resort to a proceeding of eviction
 before an Estate Officer. The interpretation
 suggested by the petitioner is contrary to the

¶106

 :: 24 ::

¶107

 purpose and intent of the Public Premises Eviction
 Act. The purpose of Public Premises Eviction Act is
 to provide for a speedy remedy to the Government or
 the Government Undertakings to evict unauthorised
 occupants from the public premises. The object is
 not to provide a machinery for eviction of the
 Government or a Government Corporations remaining in
 possession of private properties after termination
 of their tenancy.

¶108

 15. The word "Public Premises is defined to be
 the premises belonging to the Central Government or
 taken on lease or requisition by the Central
 Government. If the word Public Premises was defined
 to mean only the premises belonging to the
 Government, then in respect of the premises which
 were taken on lease by Central Government, it would
 have had no recourse of eviction under the Public
 Premises Act if a stranger was to remain in
 occupation of such premises. In order to have the
 remedy which is available to the Central Government
 in respect of the premises owned by it, the
 definition also provided that the public premises
 would include the premises belonging to the Central
 Government or taken on lease or requisition by the

¶109

 :: 25 ::

¶110

 Central Government or a corporation owned or
 controlled by the Central Government. Thus, if a
 stranger were to encroach upon the suit premises
 which were taken on lease by the petitioner
 (government company) from the respondent, the
 petitioner would have had the remedy under the
 Public Premises Eviction Act against such stranger,
 it being public premises. However, if the owner
 were to institute the proceedings for eviction or
 the petitioner (a government company) continuing in
 occupation of the suit premises after termination of
 the lease, then the owner would not have the remedy
 of instituting the proceedings of eviction under the
 Public Premises Eviction Act. The owner in such a

¶111

 case would have to go in the normal courts as
 provided under the law of the land i.e. to the
 small causes court under sub-section (1) of section
 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act. In my
 view, therefore, there is no merit in the contention
 that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to
 entertain and try the suit under sub-section (1) of
 section 41 in view of sub-section (2) of the
 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.

¶112

 16. No other point was urged before me. There

¶113

 :: 26 ::

¶114

 is no merit in the Revision Application which is
 hereby dismissed.

¶115

 17. After this judgement was pronounced in the
 open court, learned counsel for the petitioner
 requests for the stay of the execution of the decree
 to enable him to approach the Apex court.
 Mr.Kapadia learned counsel for the respondent has no
 objection for granting stay for a reasonable period
 of time. The decree passed by the Small Causes
 Court shall not be executed for a period of eight
 weeks.

¶116

 D.G. KARNIK,J

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. the Honkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. the Honkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pfizer Ltd. Vs Trasnport Pvt.Ltd.

M/S.Grifcamp Holding International Ltd. Vs Mrs.a.Raherts

rekha punjwani Vs d.p. jogi and Ors.

H.E. Jani Vs Maharashtra Industrial Develop. Corpn. and Ors.

ms sushma sankalp @ sushma manjari pati Vs s.v.s securities Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

The B.P.T.of Bombay Vs M/S.Shree Krishna Wollen Mills Pvt.Ltd.