9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Vires of the Eviction Act, 1971. 2. Applicability of Article 14. 3. Applicability of Article 19(1)(f) and (g). 4. Applicability of Article 254(2). 5. Procedure under Sections 4 and 5 of the Eviction Act, 1971. 6. Interpretation of Presidential Assent under Article 254(2). Detailed Analysis: 1. Vires of the Eviction Act, 1971: The writ petitions and appeal challenge the vires of the Eviction Act, 1971, particularly its applicability to premises belonging to Government companies and corporations. The challenge is based on Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act prevail over those of the Eviction Act, 1971, having regard to Article 254(2). 2. Applicability of Article 14: The contention based upon Article 14 is that the Eviction Act, 1971, discriminates between two classes of tenants: tenants of private landlords protected by the Bombay Rent Act and tenants of Government companies and corporations who are deprived of such protection. The Supreme Court has upheld the classification between tenants of public properties and tenants of private properties in several judgments, including Northern India Caterers (Private) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, Maganlal Chagganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, and M/s. Jain Ink Manufacturing Company v. Life Insurance Corporation of India. The Supreme Court has held that the classification is justified and has a rational nexus to the object of the statute, which is to provide a speedy machinery for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises. 3. Applicability of Article 19(1)(f) and (g): The challenge under Article 19(1)(f) is that the Bombay Rent Act conferred protection against eviction upon tenants of Government companies and corporations, creating a fundamental right to property under Article 19(1)(f). The Eviction Act, 1971, took away this protection, thereby infringing Article 19(1)(f). However, the Supreme Court in Bombay Corporation v. Pancham has held that the rights conferred on tenants by the Bombay Rent Act are fundamental rights. The doctrine of eclipse applies, meaning that the provisions of the Eviction Act, 1971, which contravened Article 19(1)(f), were not enforceable so long as Article 19(1)(f) remained a part of the Constitution. Its deletion with effect from 20th June 1979 made the Eviction Act, 1971, wholly enforceable. 4. Applicability of Article 254(2): Article 254(2) states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State. The Bombay Rent Act, a State statute, has been extended by Extension Acts from time to time, each receiving the assent of the President. The Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. held that the assent of the President should be deemed to the Act as a whole, curing any repugnance between the State Act and the earlier Central Act. 5. Procedure under Sections 4 and 5 of the Eviction Act, 1971: Sections 4 and 5 of the Eviction Act, 1971, deal with the procedure for the eviction of an unauthorized occupant. Section 4 prescribes that the unauthorized occupant must be issued with a notice in writing to show cause why an order of eviction should not be passed against him. The Estate Officer must be of the opinion that the addressee is in unauthorized occupation of public premises and that he should be evicted. Section 5 requires the Estate Officer to consider the cause shown by the addressee and, if satisfied that the addressee is in unauthorized occupation, may make an order of eviction. The Estate Officer's order must state why he is satisfied that the addressee is in unauthorized occupation and why he should be evicted. 6. Interpretation of Presidential Assent under Article 254(2): The Supreme Court in Jamalpur Gram Panchayat v. Malwinder Singh held that the assent of the President under Article 254(2) is not a matter of idle formality. The President must be apprised of the reason why his assent is sought. If the assent is sought and given in general terms, it may be effective for all purposes. However, if the assent is sought for a specific purpose, its efficacy is limited to that purpose. The assent of the President to the Extension Acts of the Bombay Rent Act was sought to overcome the repugnancy between the Bombay Rent Act and the Transfer of Property Act and the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. Therefore, the Bombay Rent Act prevails over these Central Acts but not over the Eviction Act, 1971. Conclusion: The writ petitions are dismissed. The appeal is allowed, and the writ petition is admitted but ultimately dismissed. The petitioners are entitled to contend that the notices served upon them under Section 4 and the orders passed thereon are not valid, having regard to the interpretation placed upon those provisions. The order is stayed for eight weeks, during which no action shall be taken by the respondents or their Estate Officers regarding any eviction proceedings under the Eviction Act, 1971.
|
