Public Premises Eviction Case: Supreme Court Rules on Jurisdiction in Textile Mill Dispute

The case of Savatram Rampratap Mills vs. Radheyshyam s/o Laxminarayan Goenka & Anr. revolved around a dispute concerning the eviction of an unauthorized occupant from public premises. The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s ruling that eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, must be conducted within the local jurisdiction where the premises are situated.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Savatram Rampratap Mills, was a textile mill initially privately owned but later taken over by the National Textile Corporation (NTC), making it a Government of India undertaking. This led to the applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, to its property.

Respondent No.1 was alleged to be in unauthorized occupation of certain premises belonging to the mill. The Estate Officer of NTC issued eviction notices under Sections 4 and 7(3) of the Act, directing the respondent to vacate the property. However, the notices required the respondent to attend proceedings in Mumbai rather than Akola, where the disputed property was located.

Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Argument

• The eviction proceedings were valid as per the Public Premises Act.
• The Estate Officer had the authority to conduct proceedings in Mumbai.
• Since NTC’s headquarters were in Mumbai, holding proceedings there was justified.

Respondent’s Stand

• The respondent contested the validity of the notices, arguing that proceedings should be conducted in Akola, where the property was situated.
• They contended that under Section 3(b) of the Act, jurisdiction is defined by the local limits specified in the government’s notification.
• Since the property was in Akola, the proceedings could not be held in Mumbai.

High Court’s Ruling

The Single Judge of the Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, quashing the eviction notices on the grounds of jurisdiction. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this ruling, leading the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s ruling. The Court observed:

“The Estate Officer has to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to the public premises falling in the local limits specified in the notification.”

The Court emphasized that the notices were invalid because the proceedings should have been conducted in Akola, where the property was located.

It further clarified:

“Since the notification in clear terms specified that the Mill is situated at Akola, 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 the exercise of powers by the Estate Officer.”

Legal Significance

This judgment reinforces the principle that eviction proceedings must be conducted within the territorial jurisdiction where the public premises are located. It prevents procedural misuse that could place an undue burden on respondents.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision upholds jurisdictional integrity in eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act. By directing the appellant to initiate fresh proceedings in Akola, the ruling ensures that legal actions are conducted fairly and within the proper legal framework.

Petitioner Name: Savatram Rampratap Mills.
Respondent Name: Radheyshyam s/o Laxminarayan Goenka & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Place Of Incident: Akola, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 20-08-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Savatram Rampratap M vs Radheyshyam so Laxm Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 20-08-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category