SYNDICATE BANK Vs. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI
LAWS(SC)-2011-1-67
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 04,2011

SYNDICATE BANK Appellant
VERSUS
RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard. Leave granted.
(2.) The Appellant-Bank is the owner of a shop premises forming part of a property purchased by its predecessor on 24.7.1961. One Ramakrishna Pillai (of whom the Respondents are the legal representatives) was the tenant in occupation of the said premises and he regularly paid the rent for the shop till the year 1997. In the year 1998, the Appellant issued a notice terminating the monthly tenancy and called upon the said Ramakrishna Pillai to vacate the premises. As the said Ramkrishna Pillai failed to vacate, action was initiated in the year 2002, under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 ('Public Premises Act' for short) for evicting him. The said Ramakrishna Pillai died and the Respondents who are his legal representatives, contested the proceedings. The Estate Officer by order dated 3.10.2005 directed eviction. The order of eviction was affirmed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 19.8.2006. On further challenge by way of a revision petition by the Respondents, the High Court passed the impugned order dated 16.12.2009 allowing the revision and setting aside the order of eviction. The High Court directed the Bank to reconsider and review the case of Respondents as required by the guidelines issued by the Central Government (in regard to initiation of proceedings for eviction under the Public Premises Act), and if on such review, the Bank came to the conclusion that the Respondents were not entitled to the benefits of the guidelines, then initiate fresh action for eviction. The said order is under challenge in this appeal by special leave.
(3.) The Central Government has issued "Guidelines to prevent arbitrary use of powers to evict genuine tenants from public premises under the control of public sector undertakings/financial institutions" vide resolution dated 30.5.2002 (gazetted on 8.6.2002). The guidelines read as under: 2. To prevent arbitrary use of powers to evict genuine tenants from public premises and to limit the use of powers by the Estate Officers appointed under Section 3 of the PP(E) Act, 1971, it has been decided by Government to lay down the following guidelines: (i) The provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (P.P. (E) Act, 1971) should be used primarily to evict totally unauthorized occupants of the premises of public authorities or subletees, or employees who have ceased to be in their service and thus ineligible for occupation of the premises. (ii) The provisions of the P.P.(E) Act, 1971 should not be resorted to either with a commercial motive or to secure vacant possession of the premises in order to accommodate their own employees, where the premises were in occupation of the original tenants to whom the premises were let either by the public authorities or the persons from whom the premises were acquired. (iii) A person in occupation of any premises should not be treated or declared to be an unauthorized occupant merely on service of notice of termination of tenancy, but the fact of unauthorized occupation shall be decided by following the due procedure of law. Further, the contractual agreement shall not be wound up by taking advantage of the provisions of the PP(E) Act, 1971. At the same time, it will be open to the public authority to secure periodic revision of rent in terms of the provisions of the Rent Control Act in each State or to move under genuine grounds under the Rent Control Act for resuming possession. In other words, the public authorities would have rights similar to private landlords under the Rent Control Act in dealing with genuine legal tenants. (iv) It is necessary to give no room for allegations that evictions were selectively resorted to for the purpose of securing an unwarranted increase in rent, or that a change in tenancy was permitted in order to benefit particular individuals or institutions. In order to avoid such imputations or abuse of discretionary powers, the release of premises or change of tenancy should be decided at the level of Board of Directors of Public Sector Undertakings. (v) All the Public Undertakings should immediately review all pending cases before the Estate Officer or Courts with reference to these guidelines, and withdraw eviction proceedings against genuine tenants on grounds otherwise than as provided under these guidelines. The provisions under the PP(E) Act, 1971 should be used henceforth only in accordance with these guidelines.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.