- (1.) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.4.2001 passed by learned Judge, 8th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Misc. Appeal No.10 of 1995, affirming the order dated 14th July, 1995, passed by the Estate Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India in Case No.EO/119/0893.
(2.) THE gist of the case may be depicted as follows: Petitioner No.1, M/s. Parruck and Company was the original and recorded tenant under opposite party, Life Insurance Corporation of India, in respect of suit premises situated at Andhra Insurance Building, First Floor, 12 Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 at a monthly rental of Rs.90/- payable according to the English calendar month. One Ranjit Roy Chowdhury became the proprietor of the tenant company/ the petitioner No.1 by virtue of a registered deed of conveyance dated 3.1.1977 executed by Virendra Singh Parruc, erstwhile proprietor of the said company. By the said deed dated 3rd January, 1977 Virendra Singh Parruck as proprietor of petitioner No.1 conveyed, assigned and made over all the interests and goodwill of the trade and business of M/s. Parruck and Company to Ranjit Roy Chowdhury. THEreafter, said Ranjit Roy Chowdhury started making payment of rent of the suit premises to the opposite party and thus rent of the suit premises was paid up to October, 1989. It may be pointed out that by a letter dated 13th June, 1978, the Zonal Manager of opposite party permitted the petitioner No.1 for conversion of electricity in the suit premises from DC to AC Subsequently, by a letter dated 16th December, 1992 opposite party terminated the tenancy of the petitioner No.1 through Advocate Mr. Das on the ground of default of payment of rent since November, 1989 and also on ground of sub-letting the tenancy in favour of Ranjit Roy Chowdhury, thereby asking the petitioner No.1 to quit, vacate and deliver up possession of the suit premises to opposite party after expiry of January, 1993. It would appear that the petitioner No.1 having not vacated the suit premises, the opposite party instituted Case No.EO/119/0893 before the learned Estate Officer praying for eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises as an unauthorized occupant of the same under the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. In the said case, the petitioners entered appearance and by filing the written objection denied all the allegations made therein. Thereafter the learned Estate Officer upon consideration of the evidence and materials-on-record and also having heard the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties allowed the opposite party's application and directed eviction of petitioners from the suit premises treating them as unauthorized occupants. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of eviction the petitioners preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.10/1995 which was heard and disposed of by the learned Judge, 8th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, affirming the order dated 14.7.1995 passed by the learned Estate Officer upon a finding that the petitioner No.1 by deed dated 3rd January, 1977 not only transferred the interest and goodwill of the trade and business of M/s. Parruck and Company to petitioner No.2, but also the tenancy of the suit premises. While disposing of the appeal, learned Judge, 8th Bench, City Civil Court quoted some relevant portions of the deed dated 3rd January, 1997 which is set-forth below: And whereas the said vendor has agrees with the said purchaser for the sale to him of all his interest and goodwill in the said trade and business and of the debts, furniture, effects and the premises on which the said trade or business is being carried on -.- And ---in consideration of the agreement hereinafter contained on the part of the said purchaser, the said vendor does hereby convey, assign and make over to the said purchaser -.. and all the rights, title and interest of the said vendor to and in the said premises--.- Finally, the petitioners feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order impugned have come up before this Court praying for setting aside the said judgment and order dated 25.4.2001. Now, the point for consideration would be whether the impugned judgment and order is sustainable under the law and/or the same needs any interference by this Court.
(3.) MR. Mahato, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners while making submission draws this Court's attention to the contents of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also some other important materialson- record including a few lines of the deed dated 3rd January, 1977 and argues that learned Court below while passing the impugned judgment and order committed mistake and illegality inasmuch as with the change of the proprietorship tenancy of the suit premises could not be said to have been changed and as such question of violation of tenancy rights on the part of the petitioners as alleged does not arise. He further contends that the opposite party having accepted the petitioner No.1 as tenant enhanced rent of the suit premises from Rs.78.71p ( Rupees Seventy Eight and Seventy One Paise) to Rs.90/- (Rupees Ninety) and also allowed permission to the said petitioner No.1 for conversion of the electricity in the suit premises from DC to AC. Further referring to the contents of the judgment and order passed by the Estate Officer and the learned Appellate Court below as also the guidelines published in the Gazette of India dated 8.6.2002 learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that the decision arrived at by both the forums cannot be said to have been passed as per guidelines published in the Gazette of India, Part 1 Section 1 dated 8th June, 2002. The guidelines to prevent arbitrary use of powers to evict genuine tenants from public premises under the control of Public Sector Undertakings/ Financial Institutions may be stated below:- 1. The question of notification of guidelines to prevent arbitrary use of powers to evict genuine tenants from public premises under the control of Public Sector Undertakings/financial institutions has been under consideration of the Government for some time past. 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 Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 [P.P. (E) Act, 1971] should be used primarily to evict totally unauthorised 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 unauthorised 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 P.P.(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 eviction 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 P.P.(E) Act, 1971 should be used henceforth only in accordance with these guidelines. In fine, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment and order, being not sustainable under the law, is liable to be set aside.;