CORPORATION OF CALICUT Vs. K SREENIVASAN
LAWS(SC)-2002-5-50
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on
May 03,2002
CORPORATION OF CALICUT
Appellant
VERSUS
K.SREENIVASAN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ASHOKA MARKETING LTD. AND ANR. V. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. [REFERRED]ASSOCIATED HOTELS OF INDIA LIMITED VS. R N KAPOOR [REFERRED]
B M LALL DEAD R N DUTTA VS. DUNLOP RUBBER CO INDIA LTD [REFERRED]
QUDRAT ULLAH VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD BAREILLY [REFERRED]
JAIN INK MANUFACTURING COMPANY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
KHALIL AHMED BASHIR AHMED VS. TUFELHUSSEIN SAMASBHAJI SARANGPURWALA [REFERRED]
JIWAN DASS VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
P R AITHALA ALIAS P RAMAKRISHNA AITHALA VS. HINDUSTHAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2006-10-29] [REFERRED TO]PUTTASIDDAIAH VS. THE K.S.R.T.C., SHANTHINAGAR AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-2-195] [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2013-5-386] [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL AMUSEMENT P LTD VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2011-5-38] [REFERRED TO]
ASCOT HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT LTD & ANR VS. CONNAUGHT PLAZA RESTAURANTS PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2018-3-307] [REFERRED TO]
C.D.VARGHESE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2023-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
MINNAT ARA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-2-74] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE CHANDI VS. BEENA [LAWS(KER)-2018-7-244] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMVIR KHOSLA VS. ASIAN HOTELS [LAWS(DLH)-2020-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
CHARU LODHA VS. ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-7-166] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. AANANT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2015-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
GIAN CHAND VS. BALA SUNDARI AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
V BRAMHANANDA VS. CORPORATION OF CITY OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-2009-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KHARIM VS. M.M. SHIBILY [LAWS(KER)-2014-7-262] [REFERRED TO]
METRO STUDIO VS. CANARA BANK [LAWS(KER)-2003-3-116] [REFERRED TO]
TRIVANDRUM GOLF CLUB VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2010-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
G. SILVER SPOON RESTAURANT AND ENTERTAINMENT,VISAKHAPATNAM VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-3-135] [REFERRED TO]
JAI RAM SINGH VS. HAKIM GURDITTAMAL TRUST UPPER ROAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2007-3-58] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP SHARMA VS. SAI CHHAYA AUTOLINK [LAWS(MPH)-2012-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWARAM MINERALS VS. ANSH CONSTRUCTIONS [LAWS(MPH)-2019-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
Mani Vyapar Private Ltd. VS. Sanwaria Steel Private Limited [LAWS(ORI)-2009-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH VS. JASBIR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2004-2-90] [REFERRED TO]
GODVIN CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-226] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. MASAURHI SERVICE STATION VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. VAISHNAVI SAI SHRI MAHALAXMI JAGDAMBA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA VS. PURVA VIDARBHA MAHILA PARISHAD [LAWS(BOM)-2021-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
PUNDEO SINGH & ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2016-9-128] [REFERRED]
ASHOK HARRY POTHEN VS. PREMLAL [LAWS(KER)-2023-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK HARRY POTHEN VS. PREMLAL [LAWS(KER)-2023-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBAD PATILA SHRAMIK SAHYOG VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2007-3-33] [REFERRED TO]
Commissioner Pondicherry Municipality VS. Janardhanam [LAWS(MAD)-2005-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
VODAFONE ESSAR MOBILE SERVICES LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-7-115] [REFERRED TO]
RAKA SINGHAL VS. PUSHPA BUILDERS LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2007-5-247] [REFERRED TO]
FASHION LINKERS VS. SAVITRI DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-8-222] [REFERRED TO]
AERO CLUB OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-7-201] [REFERRED TO]
PRAHLAD RAI SHARMA (DECEASED), THROUGH L.RS. VS. ALL INDIA SHWETAMBER STHANKWASI JAIN CONFERENCE (REGD.) [LAWS(DLH)-2010-10-242] [REFERRED TO]
GESTURE HOTELS AND FOOD PVT. LIMITED VS. NEW DELHI MUNCIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-300] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE CHANDI, S/O GEORGE, PALUNDA, CHUNGATHARA AMSOM DESOM AND OTHERS VS. BEENA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2018-7-979] [REFERRED TO]
JASTI VENKATESWARA RAO VS. SOUTH CENTAR RAILWAY [LAWS(APH)-2011-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
B.K. BHAGAT VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-509] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP PHOSPHATES LTD VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES PRADEEP PORT TRUST [LAWS(ORI)-2008-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
FUSION FOODS AND HOTELS PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2019-9-64] [REFERRED TO]
RASHI MITRA VS. GANGA HARIDAS [LAWS(GAU)-2006-1-75] [REFFERRED TO]
SAPTAGIRI RESTAURANT VS. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
NDMC VS. PARVEEN KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-51] [REFERRED TO]
M/S KEVENTER AGRO LIMITED VS. M/S KALYAN VYAPAR PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-302] [REFERRED TO]
V BRAMHANANDA VS. CORPORATION OF ITY OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-2009-3-64] [REFERRED TO]
USHA DATTATRAYA PACHPANDE VS. LATE MANOJ EKNATH CHAUDHARY [LAWS(BOM)-2019-11-270] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD HANIF VS. MANDIR OF SHRI BADEBALAJI [LAWS(MPH)-2005-8-119] [REFERRED TO]
B SRI NIVAS KUMAR VS. B KRISHNAMURTY [LAWS(CHH)-2010-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
ARESKO RESTAURANT PVT LTD VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. G SILVER SPOON RESTAURANT AND ENTERTAINMENTS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
GOPI MOHAN NATH VS. GOPAL NUNIA & OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2009-8-91] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
B.N. Agrawal, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The judgment impugned in this appeal has been passed by Kerala High Court in a Second Appeal whereby the same has been allowed, appellate decree, upholding that of the trial Court dismissing the suit, set aside and the suit has been decreed.
(3.)The short facts are that the appellant-Corporation, which was established by an Act promulgated by Kerala Legislature, owned a building constructed by it in the year 1972 and immediately after construction the plaintiff-respondent was put in its occupation as a licensee on payment of licence fee at the rate of Rs. 4325/- per month wherein he was running a lodging house as well as a restaurant. As the plaintiff-respondent defaulted in making payment of licence fee, the licence was terminated on 1.3.1989 whereafter the plaintiff's continuance in occupation of the building in question became unauthorised leading to issuance of a notice by the Estate Officer under Section 4 of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was duly served upon the plaintiff-respondent, requiring him to show-cause as to why an order of eviction be not passed against him in view of the fact that his occupation became unauthorised within the meaning of Section2(f) of the Act inasmuch as the licence granted in his favour was terminated. Thereupon, on 23-6-1989 the Estate Officer after satisfying himself that the building was in a unauthorised occupation of the respondent passed an order of his eviction therefrom. The said order of eviction was challenged by the plaintiff-respondent before the Civil Court by the filing a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from evicting the plaintiff from the building pursuant to the aforesaid order of eviction stating, inter alia, that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant and not licensee and in case he was found to be a licensee, his occupation could not be treated to be unauthorised within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act, as such the Estate Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction and passed order of eviction. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant on grounds, inter alia, that the plaintiff was a licensee and not a lessee, that occupation of licensee after termination of the licence became unauthorised within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act, as such the Estate Officer was quite competent to pass an order of eviction and the suit was barred under Section 15 of the Act.
(2.)The judgment impugned in this appeal has been passed by Kerala High Court in a Second Appeal whereby the same has been allowed, appellate decree, upholding that of the trial Court dismissing the suit, set aside and the suit has been decreed.
(3.)The short facts are that the appellant-Corporation, which was established by an Act promulgated by Kerala Legislature, owned a building constructed by it in the year 1972 and immediately after construction the plaintiff-respondent was put in its occupation as a licensee on payment of licence fee at the rate of Rs. 4325/- per month wherein he was running a lodging house as well as a restaurant. As the plaintiff-respondent defaulted in making payment of licence fee, the licence was terminated on 1.3.1989 whereafter the plaintiff's continuance in occupation of the building in question became unauthorised leading to issuance of a notice by the Estate Officer under Section 4 of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was duly served upon the plaintiff-respondent, requiring him to show-cause as to why an order of eviction be not passed against him in view of the fact that his occupation became unauthorised within the meaning of Section2(f) of the Act inasmuch as the licence granted in his favour was terminated. Thereupon, on 23-6-1989 the Estate Officer after satisfying himself that the building was in a unauthorised occupation of the respondent passed an order of his eviction therefrom. The said order of eviction was challenged by the plaintiff-respondent before the Civil Court by the filing a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from evicting the plaintiff from the building pursuant to the aforesaid order of eviction stating, inter alia, that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant and not licensee and in case he was found to be a licensee, his occupation could not be treated to be unauthorised within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act, as such the Estate Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction and passed order of eviction. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant on grounds, inter alia, that the plaintiff was a licensee and not a lessee, that occupation of licensee after termination of the licence became unauthorised within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act, as such the Estate Officer was quite competent to pass an order of eviction and the suit was barred under Section 15 of the Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.