Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – ss.2(g), 5, 5A and 6 – Land allotted to one M/s. Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. (STPL) – STPL stopped paying rent to the Port Trust – Lease in favour of STPL expired – STPL failed to deliver possession of the premises – Port Trust initiated eviction proceedings u/PP Act – Estate Officer passed eviction order – Authorized officer appointed for recovery of the possession of the premises, took possession of the premises and the containers stacked thereon – Notice u/s.6(1) issued by the Estate Officer to remove or cause to be removed or disposed of by public auction, any property remaining on the premises – In the said proceedings, the respondent no.6 appeared and sought permission to remove the huge number of containers from the premises – Rejected – Respondent filed writ petition, inter alia, seeking permission to remove the containers lying on the premises – Single Judge while holding that there are different views taken by two different Division Benches of the Calcutta High Court in Canoro Resources and Indian Rayon on the scope and ambit of s.59 of the 1963 Act, referred the matter to the Chief Justice for constitution of larger Bench– Full Bench held that ss.59, 61 of the 1963 Act cannot be read into proceedings u/PP Act and directed placing of the writ petition before Single Judge – On appeal, held: PP Act provides for eviction of occupants from public premises and for certain incidental matters – Act was enacted to provide for a speedy machinery for the eviction of unauthorized occupants of the public premises as it became impossible for government to take expeditious action even in flagrant cases of unauthorised occupation of public premises – Any person in occupation of the public premises without authority for such occupation is an unauthorized occupant – Expression ‘spread on any public premises’, contained in s.5A(1)(b) also means ‘lying on any premises’– s.5A(3) authorizes the Estate Officer to remove any goods lying on any public premises after an order of eviction u/s.5 – It is also not necessary that there should be a privity of contract between the Port Trust and the third party to whom such goods belong for disposing of the property by the Estate Officer u/s.6 – s.6 applies, inter alia, to the persons who keep their goods in the public premises whether they are tenants/licensees, sub-tenants or any other parties –Estate Officer, u/s.6 is entitled to sell the goods even of a stranger, found in/on the premises under unauthorized occupation – Full Bench justified in holding that there is no conflict between the two judgments of Division Bench in Canoro Resources and Indian Rayon – Single Judge of the High Court to decide the writ petition expeditiously – Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – ss.59 and 61.
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – s.6 – Purpose of – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is not in dispute that the premises is a “public premises” as defined under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 Act. The PP Act provides for eviction of occupants from public premises and for certain incidental matters. This Act was enacted to provide for a speedy machinery for the eviction of unauthorized occupants of the public premises. It is clear from the statement of object and reasons of the PP Act that it has become impossible for government to take expeditious action even in flagrant cases of unauthorised occupation of public premises and recovery of rent or damages for such unauthorised occupation. It is, therefore, considered imperative to restore a speedy machinery for the eviction of persons who are in unauthorised occupation. [Paras 15, 16] [837-G-H; 838-E]
1.2 Section 2(g) defines the expression ‘unauthorised occupation’ in relation to public premises. Section 5 lays down the procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants. Section 5A was inserted by Act 61 of 1980, which has come into force with effect from 20.12.1980. This Section provides for removal of unauthorized construction on or against or in front of any public premises. Section 6 provides for disposal of the property left on the public premises by unauthorized occupants. It is clear from sub-sections (1A) and (2) of Section 6 that any person in occupation of the public premises without authority for such occupation is an unauthorized occupant. The expression ‘spread on any public premises’, contained in sub-section (1)(b) of Section 5A in the context also means ‘lying on any premises’. Sub-section
(3) of Section 5A authorizes the Estate Officer to remove any goods lying on any public premises after an order of eviction has been made under Section 5 of the Act. It is immaterial whether the said goods belong to the erstwhile tenant/licensee or to any other party. Sub-section (1A) of Section 6 authorises the Estate Officer to dispose of such goods/materials, etc. after giving fourteen days’ notice to the persons owning such goods and other procedure prescribed therein. It is not necessary that the persons owning the goods lying on the premises should be erstwhile tenants/licensees. It is also not necessary that there should be a privity of contract between the Port Trust and the third party to whom such goods and materials belong for disposing of the property by the Estate Officer under Section 6. [Paras 17-20] [837-G; 838-D-E]
1.3 Section 6 of the PP Act has been enacted with obvious purpose of enabling statutory authorities to take all consequential steps after receiving possession of public premises and for recovery of dues, etc. The said provision ought not to be interpreted in a way which defeats the very purpose of its enactment. Section 6 of the PP Act must be read independent of, and not dependant on, Sections 59 and 61 of the MPT Act. Section
6 of the PP Act applies, inter alia, to the persons who keep their goods in the public premises whether they are tenants/licensees, sub-tenants or any other parties. The Estate Officer, under Section
6 of the PP Act, is entitled to sell the goods even of a stranger, found in/on the premises under unauthorized occupation. The Full Bench of the High Court had already directed the writ petition to be placed before the learned Single Judge for decision on merits. The Single Judge of the High Court is requested to decide the writ petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order [Paras 24, 25] [841-G-H; 842-A-C]
The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata v. Canoro Resources Ltd. & Ors. 2008 (1) CHN 941; Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta v. Indian Rayon Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. 1987 (28) ELT 334 (Cal.); Board of
Trustees of the Port of Bombay and Ors. v. Sriyanesh Knitters (1999) 7 SCC 359 : [1999] 3 SCR 1238 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.