2018 (12) TMI 1731 - HC - Indian Laws

Handing over of subject premises (public premises) by the petitioner - Lease agreement - Proceedings for eviction of petitioner from the subject premises - the jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked by petitioners by alleging mala fide. HELD THAT - A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in ASHOKA MARKETING LTD. VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK PNB 1990 (8) TMI 393 - SUPREME COURT has clearly reiterated that Public Premises under the PP Act means any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes any such premises which have been placed by that government, whether before or after the commencement of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980 - A Division Bench of this Court and other several Single Bench decisions of this Court, has ruled that correctness or otherwise of the allegations regarding determination of a Lease has to be decided by the concerned authority under the PP Act. Malafide intent - HELD THAT - It has not been shown as to how the impugned order is vitiated by mala fide or what is the bias. It is not spelt out as to what is the oblique motive in passing of the impugned order - the allegations of mala fide are preposterous and no note of these allegations is required to be taken. In the instant case, the allegations of mala fide levelled by petitioners are bald and unspecific and so, no notice of these allegations is taken. The 'subject premises' was leased out to legendary AJL for its publication, but the dominant purpose is now practically lost. This Court is constrained to observe that major portion of the 'subject premises' has been rented out and petitioners' newspaper, which was to be housed originally in the basement and ground floor, has now been shifted on the top floor with hardly any 'press activity' - Though in the instant case, beneficial interest of petitioner-AJL is not technically transferred by way of sale/mortgage/gift, but it falls under the last category of 'or otherwise', as by the afore-noted novel modus operandi, AJL has been taken over by Young Indian Company for all practical purposes. This Court is conscious of the fact that Young Indian Company is a charitable company, but modus operandi to acquire 99% of AJL's shares speaks volumes. The manner in which it has been done is also questionable. This Court is of the considered view that by no process of reasoning, can it be said that the 'subject premises' is not liable to be proceeded against under the PP Act. In the opinion of this Court, impugned order is well reasoned and it amply justifies the re-entry of respondent in the 'subject premises'. There is no impediment in the way of respondent to invoke the provisions of the PP Act to seek eviction of petitioners, in case petitioners do not voluntarily vacate the 'subject premises' and hand over its vacant possession to respondent-Land and Development Officer, within a period of two weeks from today. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Violation of Lease Deed Clauses.
2. Misuse of the subject premises.
3. Transfer of property shares without permission.
4. Allegations of mala fide and political motives.
5. Applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Lease Deed Clauses:

The court found that Associated Journals Limited (AJL) had violated Clauses III(7) and III(13) of the Lease Deed. The premises, originally leased for running a press, had not been used for this purpose for at least ten years. Instead, it was used for commercial purposes, violating Clause III(7). Additionally, unauthorized construction and sub-letting without permission violated Clause III(13).

2. Misuse of the Subject Premises:

The court noted that the premises were rented out to various commercial entities, including the Passport Office and Tata Consultancy Agency, while the basement was vacant. The ground floor was used for unauthorized construction. The inspection revealed no press activity, confirming misuse of the premises.

3. Transfer of Property Shares without Permission:

The court observed that AJL transferred almost 100% of its shares to another company, Young Indian, without the lessor's permission, violating Clause III(13). This transfer, though not a sale, mortgage, or gift, fell under "or otherwise" and was considered a surreptitious transfer of beneficial interest.

4. Allegations of Mala Fide and Political Motives:

The court dismissed the petitioners' allegations of mala fide and political motives as bald and unspecific. It found no evidence to support claims of bias or ulterior motives. The court emphasized that the burden of proving mala fide is heavy and requires high credibility, which the petitioners failed to provide.

5. Applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971:

The court upheld the applicability of the PP Act, noting that the premises could be regarded as "public premises" under the Act. It cited precedents affirming that the correctness of lease determination should be decided under the PP Act. The impugned order adhered to natural justice principles, issuing a Show-Cause Notice and conducting an inspection.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the dominant purpose of the lease, running a press, was lost. It justified the respondent's re-entry into the premises and upheld the impugned order, allowing eviction proceedings under the PP Act if the petitioners did not vacate within two weeks. The petition was disposed of accordingly.