Batliboi and Company. Ltd. vs Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. and Another

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—These three petitions (CM(M) Nos. 1349/2007, 1355/2007 & 1612/2007) are being disposed of by this Common Order, inasmuch as, there are more or less identical facts and parties are also the same. Reference for the sake of convenience is therefore being made to the facts in CM(M) No. 1349/2007.

The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order dated 14.9.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge in appeal u/s 9(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and which appeal was filed against the order of recovery of damages dated 17.4.2004 passed by the Estate Officer with respect to the premises admeasuring 2353 square feet on fourth floor in the building known as "Jeevan Vihar" situated at 3, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The period in question is 16.5.1997 to 15.3.2004.

I need not elaborate in detail the facts because I feel that the petitions can be disposed of in narrow parameters in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which remedy is not only extraordinary, but also discretionary. Powers are exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only when the judgment/order of the Court below shocks the judicial conscience or is grossly illegal or causes grave irreparable injustice. Merely because two views are possible, this Court does not even interfere in appeal against an impugned order and therefore much less so in the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has urged before me that in the present case, no evidence whatsoever was led before the Estate Officer on behalf of the Petitioner in this Court, who was the Respondent in the proceedings before the Estate Officer. It is argued that, therefore, on the one hand, there is no evidence led whatsoever by the Petitioner before the Estate Office, and on the other hand, evidence was led by the Respondent before the Estate Officer whereby with respect to a premises on the ground floor, rent was shown to be of Rs. 70/- sq.ft., and Respondent only claimed instead of Rs. 70/- per sq. ft., a lesser rent of Rs. 45/- per square feet, inasmuch as, the subject premises were not on the ground floor but on the second floor. Therefore, it is canvassed that there is some valid basis for grant of the mesne profits at the lesser rate claimed instead of the higher rate of the premises on the ground floor of the same building as per the lease deed which was filed by the Respondent.

In my opinion, once the Petitioner failed to lead evidence to discharge the onus of proof, which shifted upon it, then, the Estate Officer was fully justified in accepting the evidence as filed by and relied upon by the Respondent. The Appellate Court has also, therefore, committed no illegality in sustaining the order of the Estate Officer by accepting charges of the subject premises @ Rs. 45 per sq. ft.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance upon the decision in the case of Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai and Another, , and paras 17 to 20 thereof, to canvass that the State cannot act in a maverick fashion, and there has to be reasonableness in the actions of the Respondent with respect to eviction of tenants from the premises. I may note that in this regard there were various guidelines which have been issued by the Government, last of the guidelines being 30th May, 2002, as per which, the tenants could not be evicted when they were tenants of the State, except in terms of the guidelines.

This issue with respect to applicability of the relevant guidelines is no longer res integral, inasmuch as, the Supreme Court has decided New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia and Another, , and the ratio of which has been upheld in the very recent decision in the case of Syndicate Bank Vs. Ramachandran Pillai and Others, that the enforcement of any right under the Public Premises Act(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act,1971 cannot be set at naught by relying upon the aforesaid guidelines which are not statutory in character. These decisions of the Supreme court hold that any guidelines, which are against the provisions of the Public Premises Act, are not binding upon the Governmental Authorities. In my opinion, therefore, the decision in the case of Jamshed Hormusji Wadia (supra) as cited by counsel for the Petitioner will not apply, more so, because, the present is not the case with respect to eviction of the Petitioner from the premises and against which protection is sought of the Court.

In view of the above, and particularly the fact that the Petitioner failed to discharge the onus of proof, which shifted upon it, and also the decisions in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Syndicate Bank (supra), there is no merit in this petition which is therefore dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.