SAVATRAM RAMPRATAP MILLSversusRADHEYSHYAM S/O LAXMINARAYAN GOENKA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.

                         [2018] 10 S.C.R. 929                               929


                 SAVATRAM RAMPRATAP MILLS                                   A
                                   v.
 RADHEYSHYAM S/O LAXMINARAYAN GOENKA (D) THR.
                  LRS. & ANR.
                    (Civil Appeal No. 751 of 2008)                          B

                          AUGUST 20, 2018
               [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
                 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
                                                                            C
      Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act,
1971: s.3(b) – Public Premises situated at Akola – Notice issued
under the Act to attend proceedings at Mumbai – Whether the
proceedings in relation to such public premises can be initiated under
the Act at Mumbai or it has to be initiated at Akola – Held: The            D
Estate Officer has to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to the public
premises falling in the local limits in the notification – In the instant
case, the proceedings in relation to such public premises could only
be initiated at Akola, that being the area falling in the local limits
specified in the notification for exercise of powers by
Estate Officer.                                                             E

      Dismissing the appeals, the Court
       HELD: Construing the expression “local limits within
which” occurring in Section 3(b) of the Act, the High Court rightly
held that the Estate Officer has to exercise its jurisdiction in            F
relation to the public premises falling in the local limits specified
in the notification. Since in this case, the notification in clear terms,
specified that the Mill is situated at Akola, a fortiori, the
proceedings in relation to such public premises under the Act
could only be initiated at Akola-that being the area falling in the
                                                                            G
local limits specified in the notification for exercise of powers by
the Estate Officer. The High Court was, therefore, right in
interpreting Section 3(b) of the Act and, in consequence, was
legally justified in quashing the notices impugned in the writ
petition as being without jurisdiction. [Paras 15, 16] [932-E-G]
                                                                            H
                                  929
930             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 751 of
      2008.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2007 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Letters Patent
      Appeal No. 46 of 2004.
B                                      WITH
              C.A. Nos. 9700/2014 and 9704/2014
           Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., D. M. Nargolkar, Ms. Sujata Kurdukar,
      Gagan Sanghi, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advs. for the appearing parties.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C
              ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
              In Civil Appeal No. 751 of 2008
             1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
      16.01.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature
D     at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in L.P.A. No.46 of 2004 whereby
      the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the
      appellant herein and upheld the order dated 25.11.2003 passed by the
      Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.1795 of 2003 by
      which the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein was allowed and
      the order passed by the Estate Officer of the National Textile Corporation
E     Ltd. (respondent No.2 herein) was set aside.
           2. Few facts need to be mentioned infra for disposal of the appeal,
      which involves a short question.
             3. The appellant was originally a privately owned Company
      situated at Akola (Maharashtra). It was engaged in the business of
F
      manufacture of cotton. This Mill was later taken over by the National
      Textile Corporation (Maharashtra) Ltd., which is a subsidiary of NTC-a
      Government of India Undertaking.
            4. Since the appellant became the Government of India
      Undertaking, the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
G     Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) became
      applicable to the appellant’s Mills.
            5. On 25.06.1993 and 04.04.2003, the Estate Officer of the
      appellant issued the notices under Sections 4 and 7 (3) of the Act to
      respondent No.1’s predecessor, who was alleged to be in an unauthorized
H
  SAVATRAM RAMPRATAP MILLS v. RADHEYSHYAM S/O                                   931
LAXMINARAYAN GOENKA (D) [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. ]

occupation of the appellant’s premises, and called upon him to vacate           A
the premises specified in the notices. He was, however, asked to attend
the proceedings, pursuant to the notices, at Mumbai.
       6. Respondent No.1’s predecessor felt aggrieved by the issuance
of the notices, particularly, that part of the notices, which had directed
him to attend the proceedings at Mumbai, and filed a writ petition in           B
High Court of Bombay at Nagpur questioning the legality and validity of
the notices.
      7. The challenge to the notices was essentially on the ground
that when the public premises in question is situated at Akola then the
proceedings in relation to such public premises has to be held only at          C
Akola rather than at Mumbai where no part of the cause of action had
arisen.
       8. In other words, the contention was that when admittedly the
entire cause of action to initiate the proceedings under the Act had arisen
at Akola within the local limits specified in notification issued under         D
Section 3 where the public premises in question is situated, the respondent
No.1’s predecessor cannot be asked to attend the proceedings at Mumbai
and the proceedings under the Act can only be validly initiated at Akola
that being within the local limits specified in the notification issued under
Section 3 of the Act.
                                                                                E
      9. The Single Judge of the High Court accepted the ground raised
by the respondents herein (writ petitioners) and by his order dated
25.11.2003 allowed the writ petition, in consequence, quashed the
impugned notices. It was held that the appellant would be free to initiate
the proceedings under the Act in relation to public premises in question
at Akola. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed Letters Patent Appeal          F
before the Division Bench.
       10. By impugned order, the Division Bench upheld the order passed
by the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal, which has given rise to
filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the appellant-
Mills in this Court.                                                            G
       11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal finding
no merit therein.

                                                                                H
932             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A            12. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench in the impugned
      order rightly upheld the view taken by the Single Judge calling for no
      interference in this appeal.
             13. The short question, which arose for consideration before the
      High Court, was that when the public premises in question is situated at
B     Akola, whether the proceedings in relation to such public premises can
      be initiated under the Act at Mumbai or it has to be initiated at Akola,
      that being the place falling in the local limits specified in the notification
      issued under Section 3 of the Act for exercise of jurisdiction by the
      Estate Officer.
C           14. Section 3(b) of the Act, which is relevant for this case, reads
      as under:
              “3. Appointment of estate officers- The Central
              Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette-
              (a)……………………………
D
              (b) define the local limits within which, or the categories
              of public premises in respect of which, the estate officers
              shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the
              duties imposed, on estate officers by or under this Act.”
             15. Construing the expression “local limits within which”
E
      occurring in Section 3(b) of the Act, the High Court held and, in our
      opinion, rightly that the Estate Officer has to exercise its jurisdiction in
      relation to the public premises falling in the local limits specified in the
      notification.
             16. Since in this case, the notification (Annexure P-1), in clear
F
      terms, specified that the Mill is situated at Akola [see Item 5(15)], a
      fortiori, the proceedings in relation to such public premises under the
      Act could only be initiated at Akola-that being the area falling in the local
      limits specified in the notification for exercise of powers by the Estate
      Officer. The High Court was, therefore, right in interpreting Section
G     3(b) of the Act and, in consequence, was legally justified in quashing the
      notices impugned in the writ petition as being without jurisdiction.
            17. Before parting, we consider it apposite to state that the
      appellant would be free to issue fresh notices to respondent No.1 under
      the Act and initiate the proceedings for their eviction from the public
H     premises at Akola.
  SAVATRAM RAMPRATAP MILLS v. RADHEYSHYAM S/O                                    933
LAXMINARAYAN GOENKA (D) [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. ]

      18. If the respondents are dispossessed on the strength of any             A
order passed by the Estate Officer, the possession will remain with the
appellant but it will be subject to final adjudication of the proceedings
once initiated by the appellant.
      19. Let fresh notices be issued by the appellant within one month
from the date of this order to respondent No.1 or/and to any person(s),          B
who claim(s) to be in possession in relation to specified public premises
under the Act.
       20. The proceedings be held at Akola-that being the proper place
for deciding the proceedings under the Act, as specified in the notification
issued under Section 3 referred supra.                                           C
       21. The proceedings, once initiated, be completed expeditiously
strictly in accordance with law.
      22. With these directions, the appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
                                                                                 D
       In Civil Appeal Nos. 9700 & 9704 of 2014
      In view of the above order passed in C.A. No.751 of 2008, these
appeals are also dismissed with the same directions.
Devika Gujral                                               Appeals dismissed.
                                                                                 E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H