2007 (12) TMI 410 - SC - Indian Laws

Who should begin to lead evidence in a proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971? Held that - Appeal dismissed. Even if we assume that in terms of the statutory provisions the respondents must lead evidence first the same can be waived, Appellant not only had filed affidavits in one of the cases but time and again sought adjournments when the deponent of the affidavit was to be cross-examined. Only after a long period, an application was filed asking the respondents to show cause. Cause had already been shown by the respondents. They pleaded that no case has been made out for their eviction. We, therefore, fail to understand on what basis the Estate Officer passed the order impugned before the High Court. direct that both the parties must file their documents within a week from today and the Estate Officer must give both the parties inspection of the said documents within a week thereafter.

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of who should lead evidence first in proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
2. The applicability of principles of natural justice and fair procedure in eviction proceedings.
3. The statutory interpretation of the Act and its Rules.
4. The relevance and impact of non-statutory guidelines issued by the Central Government.
5. The constitutional validity and interpretation of the Act in light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Who Should Lead Evidence First:
The primary issue in these appeals is who should begin to lead evidence in proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The appellant argued that the respondent-tenant should lead evidence first, as the Estate Officer had already satisfied itself that the respondent was in unauthorized occupation. However, the respondents contended that the appellant should lead evidence first, especially when the grounds for eviction require proof of the landlord's bona fide need.

The court held that in cases where the grounds for eviction require the production of positive evidence by the landlord, it is for the landlord to adduce evidence first. This is particularly true in composite applications where evidence is also required for determining the quantum of damages. The court emphasized that the procedural aspect of who should lead evidence first should be determined based on the issues arising in the matter.

2. Applicability of Principles of Natural Justice and Fair Procedure:
The court underscored that the action of the State must be fair and reasonable, and the principles of natural justice must be adhered to in eviction proceedings. The Estate Officer must record a summary of the evidence, and the documents should form part of the record of the proceedings. The tenant must be given an opportunity to file an effective show cause, which can only be done when eviction is sought on specified grounds with known particulars.

The court also highlighted that if some facts are to be proved by the landlord, the occupant should get an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. This is part of the principles of natural justice and an indefeasible right.

3. Statutory Interpretation of the Act and Its Rules:
The court discussed the statutory framework of the Act, including Sections 4 and 5, which deal with the issuance of show cause notices and the procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants. The court noted that the Act and the Rules must be read together, and the Estate Officer, being a creature of the statute, must comply with the procedural requirements.

The court also referred to the underlying principles of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, stating that the burden of proving a fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue.

4. Relevance and Impact of Non-Statutory Guidelines:
The court acknowledged the guidelines issued by the Central Government from time to time, which aim to ensure that the action of the State is not arbitrary, unreasonable, or mala fide. However, the court clarified that these guidelines are advisory in character and do not confer any legal right upon the tenant. The ultimate effect of these guidelines on the application was not finally determined by the court.

5. Constitutional Validity and Interpretation of the Act:
The court discussed the constitutional backdrop of the Act, noting that it had faced several challenges over the years. The court referred to previous judgments that upheld the validity of the Act, emphasizing that the Act provides a speedy remedy and the principles of natural justice must be complied with.

The court also highlighted the need for purposive construction of the Act to ensure that the object of the Act is fulfilled and the State meets its constitutional obligations under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant must lead evidence first in cases where the grounds for eviction require proof of the landlord's bona fide need. The Estate Officer must ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and inspect documents. The proceedings before the Estate Officer should be conducted expeditiously and on a day-to-day basis.

The appeals were dismissed with directions for both parties to file their documents and affidavits within specified timeframes, and the Estate Officer was directed to pass a final order within ten weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order. The court also awarded costs to the respondents, assessing counsel fees at Rs.25,000/- in each case.

← Previous Next →