2014 (2) TMI 1413 - SC - Indian Laws

Eviction order - Appellant had raised the point of not being covered under the Public Premises Act, 1971 at all stages - applicability of Public Premises Act - retrospective or prospective application - HELD THAT - The judgment in Dr. Suhas Pophale's case 2015 (8) TMI 1220 - SUPREME COURT accepts that the Public Premises Act will prevail over the Bombay Rent Act to the extent of repugnancy i.e. for eviction of unauthorised tenants and for collection of arrear of rent, but, not prior to 16.9.1958 when the Public Premises Act became applicable. Paragraphs 42 and 65 which are relied upon also do not deal with the aspect of retrospectivity and being protected under the welfare legislation. The eviction proceedings initiated against the Appellant will stand set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to judgment and order for eviction from premises.
2. Applicability of Public Premises Act.
3. Res judicata and constructive res judicata.
4. Comparison of judgments in Ashoka Marketing Limited and Dr. Suhas H. Pophale cases.
5. Interpretation of Article 254(1) in relation to Bombay Rent Act and Public Premises Eviction Act.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged a judgment directing the eviction of the Appellant from premises in New Delhi. The Appellant claimed occupancy since 1952, contesting eviction under the Public Premises Act invoked in a notice from 1999. The Appellant argued against applicability of the Act, citing protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Estate Officer and subsequent authorities upheld eviction, leading to the appeal.

2. The main contention revolved around the applicability of the Public Premises Act. The Appellant argued that the Act should not apply to premises occupied before its enactment in 1958, referencing the Dr. Suhas H. Pophale case. The Respondent contended that the Appellant had dropped the plea mid-process, invoking res judicata. The court rejected this argument, allowing the Appellant to raise the legal plea.

3. Res judicata and constructive res judicata were debated. The Respondent claimed the Appellant had abandoned the plea against the Act's applicability. However, the court permitted the Appellant to raise the legal plea, emphasizing the importance of addressing legal submissions.

4. A comparison between the Ashoka Marketing Limited and Dr. Suhas H. Pophale cases was crucial. The Respondent argued against the Dr. Suhas H. Pophale judgment, citing discrepancies with the Ashoka Marketing Limited case. The court analyzed the precedents and clarified that the Public Premises Act applies under specific circumstances, rejecting the Respondent's objections.

5. The interpretation of Article 254(1) in relation to the Bombay Rent Act and the Public Premises Eviction Act was pivotal. The court referenced the Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Limited case, emphasizing the Act's precedence over state laws in cases of repugnancy. The judgment highlighted the Act's authority in evicting unauthorized tenants and collecting arrears, reinforcing the decision to set aside the eviction order in favor of the Appellant.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside all previous orders for eviction. The court established a rent agreement between the parties, ensuring the Appellant's continued occupancy for twelve years with a rent revision clause. The judgment clarified the application of the Public Premises Act and upheld the Appellant's right to challenge the eviction proceedings based on legal grounds.