METRO STUDIO Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in a proceedings initiated by the Estate Officer, Canara Bank, Thiruvananthapuram are the revision petitioners. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order passed by the Estate Officer under S.5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Act for short) and confirmed by the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.A. 238 of 2000.

(2.) The first revision petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act having its office at Canara Bank Building, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram, second revision petitioner is the Managing Partner and the third revision petitioner a Partner of the firm. The building bearing No. T.C. 26/281 situated near M.G. Road in Thiruvananthapuram City, is owned by Canara Bank. Originally the property belonged to a firm by name Trivandrum Permanent Fund. In the year 1936, a building situated in the property was let out to Mr. H.E. Lopez for the purpose of running a Studio. He had started a Studio by name Metro Studio in that property. Subsequently the Canara Bank took over the liabilities of Trivandrum Permanent Fund and thus it became the owner of the property and landlord of the building in which Sr.H.E. Lopez was conducting the photo studio. On 14.10.1969 the second revision petitioner took over the proprietary concern run by H.E. Lopez with the knowledge and consent of the landlord. The proprietary concern was converted into a partnership firm, consisting of the revision petitioners 2 and 3 and their father Shri T.M. Joseph. They attorned to the Bank and was paying rent to the Bank. The landlord bank wanted to reconstruct the entire building which is occupied by the revision petitioners. They agreed to vacate the premises so as to enable the landlord to reconstruct the building on an understanding that during the reconstruction they will be given alternate accommodation by the landlord itself. On 2.12.1978, an agreement was entered into between the revision petitioners and the Bank, by which the revision petitioners agreed to shift the Studio to an alternate accommodation provided by the landlord with a further understanding that after reconstruction of the building an area of 62.82 square metres will be given to the tenant at a no profit no loss basis on execution of a registered rent deed. Accordingly, the tenant / firm gave vacant possession of the old building and shifted the Studio to the alternate accommodation provided by the landlord. On 10.5.1982, the revision petitioners and the respondents entered into an agreement for lease. The revision petitioners were given room in the reconstructed building and they shifted the Studio from the alternate accommodation provided to them by the landlords and started business in the reconstructed building. But, no registered lease deed was executed between the parties as agreed to between them. On 30.6.1992, the Bank issued a letter demanding surrender of vacant possession of the building. On receipt of the notice, the revision petitioners filed a suit for declaration that the lease agreement between the revision petitioners and the Bank was that of perpetuity and so they cannot be evicted from the premises. There was an interim order, which was subsequently vacated. The revision petitioners filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and ultimately they filed C.R.P. 1501 of 1998 before this Court and the Civil Revision Petition was disposed of on 16.10.1998. Thereafter on 28.10.1998 the Estate Officer issued a notice under S.4(1) of the Act. The notice was served on the revision petitioners 2 and 3. The notice issued to Shri. T.M. Joseph, the other partner of the firm, was returned unserved with an endorsement that he was dead. On receipt of the notice, the revision petitioners entered appearance before the Estate Officer and filed their objections. Evidence was also recorded. Thereafter the Estate Officer passed an order of eviction as provided under S.5(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Estate Officer, the revision petitioners filed C.M.A. 238 of 2000 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned District Judge after hearing both sides, concurred with the findings entered by the Estate Officer and dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. In the meanwhile widow of Smt. T.M. Joseph filed O.P. 32179 of 2001 before this Court. The Original Petition was dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner in the Original Petition to get herself impleaded in this proceedings. Accordingly, she filed a petition for getting herself impleaded in this proceedings and the same was allowed. She was impleaded as additional respondent No. 2 in this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has argued that the order passed by the Estate Officer is invalid and unsustainable. It is argued that the Estate Officer was acting in an arbitrary manner as if he has got unbridled and unlimited powers. It is also argued that the purpose for which the eviction of the revision petitioners is sought is only a pretext or ruse to evict them from the premises and let out the same to others for higher rent. It is also argued that the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked to evict a genuine tenant in view of the guidelines issued by the Minister of Urban Development of the Central Government. Further it is argued that under S.4(1) of the Act, notice has to be issued to persons who are having interest on the premises and the legal heirs of T.M. Joseph who died before receipt of the notice are also persons having interest in the premises. But, they were not issued with any notice and on that ground alone the proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is also argued that the Estate Officer can initiate proceedings only against unauthorised occupants and he cannot make the occupation of a person unauthorised and then evict him. It is argued that the specific case put forward by the Estate Officer is that the petitioners are lessees inducted into possession under the agreement of lease executed in the year 1982 for a term of ten years and since that term expired, their occupation has become unauthorised and liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Act. It is argued that the document relied on by the Estate Officer is a document compulsorily registrable under S.17(2) of the Indian Registration Act and since the same is not registered, the same cannot be received as evidence in view of the provisions contained in S.49 of the Registration Act. So, that document cannot be looked into for any purpose. It is argued that except that document, there is nothing on record to show that the occupation of the revision petitioner has become unauthorised and they are liable to be evicted from the premises. It is argued that the tenancy arrangement still continues and until and unless the tenancy is determined, their possession is not unauthorised and hence they cannot be evicted under S.4 and S.5 of the Act.