Delhi District Court
Shri S.S. Khera vs M/S. Punjab National Bank on 26 March, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI G.P. MITTAL: DISTRICT JUDGE-1: DELHI.
(1)- PPA - 57/08 (Old No. 46/92)
Shri S.S. Khera,
Proprietor M/s Snowhite Clothiers,
14/20, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II, New Delhi. .......... Appellant.
Versus
M/s. Punjab National Bank,
7, Bikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi. .......... Respondent.
Date of institution of the appeal : 06.02.92
Date on which order was reserved : 04.03.10
Date of decision : 26.03.10 :
...........................................
(2) PPA - 58/08 (Old No. 402/92)
Shri S.S. Khera,
Proprietor M/s Snowhite Clothiers,
14/20, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-II, New Delhi. .......... Appellant.
Versus
M/s. Punjab National Bank,
7, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi. .......... Respondent.
Date of institution of the appeal : 24.09.92
Date on which order was reserved : 04.03.10
Date of decision : 26.03.10
...........................................
PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 1of 24
(3) PPA - 63/08 (Old No.502/91)
M/s. Pearey Lal & Sons Pvt. Ltd.,
a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956,
and having its Registered Office at 40-42, Janpath, New Delhi,
through its Director, Shri H.K. Agarwal. .......... Appellant.
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank,
a body corporate constituted under the Banking
Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970 and having its Head Office at 5, Parliament Street,
New Delhi; one of its branches at Gurdwara Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
2- Shri S.K. Awasthi,
Estate Officer,
36, Chandralok, Janpath,
New Delhi. .......... Respondents.
Date of institution of the appeal : 09.10.91
Date on which order was reserved : 15.03.10
Date of decision : 26.03.10
...........................................
(4) PPA - 65/08 (Old No.144/02)
1- M/s. Fair Deals (Partnership firm),
through its Partner, Shri Prem Kumar,
2- Shri Prem Kumar,
Shop No.3, Punjab National Bank Building,
Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi. .......... Appellants.
Versus
1- The Estate Officer,
Punjab National bank,
Zonal office, PNB Building,
Tolstoy Marg, Delhi - 110 001.
PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 2of 24
2. Punjab National Bank,
a body corporate constituted under the Banking
Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970 and having its Head Office at 7, Bikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi inter-alia one of its branches at:
Gurdwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
.......... Respondents.
Date of institution of the appeal : 03.04.02
Date on which order was reserved : 04.03.10
Date of decision : 26.03.10
...........................................
(5) PPA - 67/08 (Old No.261/02)
1- M/s. Stylecrafts (Partnership firm),
through its Partner, Shri Virender Kumar Jain,
2- Shri Virender Kumar Jain.
3- Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain,
Shop No.5, Punjab National Bank Building,
Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi. .......... Appellants.
Versus
1- The Estate Officer,
Punjab National bank,
Zonal office, PNB Building,
Tolstoy Marg, Delhi - 110 001.
2. Punjab National Bank,
a body corporate constituted under the Banking
Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970 and having its Head Office at 7, Bikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi inter-alia one of its branches at:
Gurdwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
.......... Respondents
Date of institution of the appeal : 01.02.02
Date on which order was reserved : 04.03.10
Date of decision : 26.03.10
...........................................
PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 3of 24
(6) PPA - 68/08 (Old No.262/02)
1- M/s. Stylecrafts (Partnership firm),
through its Partner, Shri Virender Kumar Jain,
2- Shri Virender Kumar Jain.
3- Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain,
Shop No.4, Punjab National Bank Building,
Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi. .......... Appellants.
Versus
1- The Estate Officer,
Punjab National bank,
Zonal office, PNB Building,
Tolstoy Marg, Delhi - 110 001.
2. Punjab National Bank,
a body corporate constituted under the Banking
Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970 and having its Head Office at 7, Bikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi inter-alia one of its branches at:
Gurdwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
..........
Respondents.
Date of institution of the appeal : 01.07.02
Date on which order was reserved : 04.03.10
Date of decision : 26.03.10
...........................................
(7) PPA - 66/08 (Old No.57/92)
The Khatau Makanji Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd.,
(A company registered under the Indian Companies Act)
having its registered office at
Laxmi Building 6, Shoorji Vallabh Dass Marg,
Ballard Estate, Bombay-400 038.
PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 4of 24
AND
A Retail showroom at
Punjab National Shopping Complex Building,
Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi.
(Through Shri Ranjit Sodha,
Regional Sales Manager) .......... Appellant.
Versus
1- The Estate Officer,
Punjab National bank,
Zonal office, Chandralok Building,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Punjab National Bank,
a body corporate constituted under the Banking
Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970 and having its Head Office at 7, Bikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi.
i) inter-alia one of its branches at:
Gurdwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
.......... Respondents.
Date of institution of the appeal : 01.07.92
Date on which order was reserved : 04.03.10
Date of decision : 26.03.10
...........................................
(8) PPA - 70/08 (Old No.56/92)
The Khatau Makanji Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd.,
(A company registered under the Indian Companies Act)
having its registered office at
Laxmi Building 6, Shoorji Vallabh Dass Marg,
Ballard Estate, Bombay-400 038.
AND
PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 5of 24
A Retail showroom at
Punjab National Shopping Complex Building,
Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110 005.
(Through Shri Ranjit Sodha,
Regional Sales Manager) .......... Appellant.
Versus
1- The Estate Officer,
Punjab National bank,
Zonal office, Chandralok Building,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Punjab National Bank,
a body corporate constituted under the Banking
Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970 and having its Head Office at 7, Bikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi.
i) inter-alia one of its branches at:
Gurdwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
.......... Respondents.
Date of institution of the appeal : 01.07.92
Date on which order was reserved : 04.03.10
Date of decision : 26.03.10
...........................................
(9) PPA - 69/08 (Old No.411/01)
1- Smt. Sheila Nanda,
2- Smt. Usha Nanda,
3- Ms. Sejal Nanda,
4- Sh. Rishi Nanda.
5- Shri Tushar Nanda,
(LRs. Of the deceased Shri Ashok Kumar Nanda).
Shop No.14, Punjab National Bank Building,
Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. ....... Appellants
PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 6of 24
Versus
1- The Estate Officer,
Punjab National bank,
Zonal office, PNB Building,
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Punjab National Bank,
(A body corporate constituted under the Banking
Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970)
Having its Head Office at:
7, Bikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi inter-alia one of its branches at:
Gurdwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
.......... Respondents.
Date of institution of the appeal : 14.12.01
Date on which order was reserved : 04.03.10
Date of decision : 26.03.10
...........................................
JUDGEMENT :-
These are nine appeals titled as SS Khera Vs. PNB (appeal No.57/08), SS Khera vs. PNB (appeal No.58/08, Pearey Lal vs. PNB (appeal No 63/08); Fair Deals Vs. PNB (appeal No. 65/08); M/s Style Craft Vs. PNB (appeal No. 67/08) ; M/s Style Craft Vs. PNB (appeal No. 68/08); Khatau Makanji Vs. PNB (Appeal No 66/08); Khatau Makanji Vs. PNB (Appeal No. 70/08) and Sheila Nanda Vs. PNB (Appeal No.69/08).
2. In appeal No. 57/08, the appellant had been let out shop No.9 of PNB Building, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi vide lease deed dated 16/1/1962 for a period of 11 months w.e.f.1-2-62 .The lease thereafter was not renewed. Hence, the appellant became a tenant on month to month basis by PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 7of 24 holding over. Vide notice dated 4-6-87 (Ex.P-3 before the Estate Officer), the tenancy of the appellant was terminated w.e.f. 30-6-1987 and the appellant was required to vacate the shop by the said date. The appellant was informed that the premises are bonafide required by the respondent bank for its own use and in furtherance of its activities. He was told that the premises in question was a public premises under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") and if the premises were not vacated by the due date, the respondent bank shall be constrained to seek eviction and damages under the Act. The premises having not been vacated an eviction petition u/section 5 of the Act was filed before the learned Estate Officer, the same was contested by the appellant on various grounds including that the requirement of the respondent bank was neither bonafide nor genuine. The respondent bank examined Mr.V.P Mittal, the Manager of Punjab National Bank (for short "the Bank") at the relevant time as PW 1 , whereas appellant examined one Mr.Om Parkash an employee of Snowhite Drycleaners of which the appellant SS Khera was the proprietor. Vide order dated 23-6-1992, the Estate Officer came to the conclusion that the premises were bonafide required by the respondent bank and that the appellant was an unauthorized occupant after his tenancy was terminated. Snowhite Drycleaners and all the persons in occupation of the premises were required to vacate the same within 15 days of the receipt of order. 3- Similarly, in appeal No.58, the appellant was required to vacate Shop No.12, 12-A and 12-B ; in appeal No.63/08 the appellant was required to vacate shop No.13, in appeal No.65/09, the appellant was required to vacate shop No.3, in appeal No.66/08 and 70/08 , the appellant was required to vacate shop No.6 and 7; in appeal No.67/08 the appellant was required to vacate shop No.4, in appeal No.68/08, the appellant was required to vacate shop No.5 and in appeal No.69/08, the appellant was required to vacate shop No.14, vide orders dated 9-9-1992; 4-10-1991, 4-3-2002, 2-6-1992, 2-6-1992, 18-6-2002, PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 8of 24 18-6-2002, 27.10.2001 and 23.01.1992 respectively passed by the learned Estate Officer. All the appellants have challenged the respective orders passed by the Estate Officer. In appeal No.57/08, sum and substance of the averments raised by the appellant during the hearing of the appeal, is that the notice dated 4/6/87 was received by the appellant sometimes in July, 1987. The legality of the notice except in appeal No.58/08 and 63 /08 has not been disputed. In these two appeals, it has been averred that the tenancy had not been terminated by 15 days' notice expiring with the month of the tenancy and the termination was therefore, not in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The bonafide requirement of the tenancy premises by the respondent bank was, however, seriously disputed by the appellant in reply to the petition, as well as during the course of evidence led before the Estate Officer. Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these nine appeals, I propose to dispose of the same by this common judgement. 4- I have heard Shri D.K. Rustagi Advocate in appeal No.57/08 and 58/08; Shri Naresh Thanai Adv, in appeal No.63/08; Shri SK Chaudhary, Advocate in appeal No.66/08 to 70/08 and Shri BD Kaushik, Advocate in appeal No.65/08 on behalf of the appellants and Shri Y.P. Chandana, Advocate on behalf of the respondent bank.
5- It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no difference in proving the ground for eviction under various Rent Control legislations and under the Act except that in seeking eviction in respect of a public premises under the Act , the Estate Officer is appointed by the Government or by the public corporation and a speedy procedure has been provided under the Act. Thus, a tenant cannot be evicted from a public premises arbitrarily or indiscriminately but there has to be a genuine ground like non adherence to the terms of the lease, non payment of rent, bonafide requirement etc. etc., as are available to an ordinary landlord under the Rent Control PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 9of 24 legislation. The Government or the public corporation is required to prove the grounds put up before the Estate Officer in the inquiry which he is expected to hold under Section 5 of the Act. It has been urged that not only the Govt. /public corporation is required to prove ground for eviction of the tenant, their action has to be reasonable and not arbitrary, as the public corporation are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the action of the State has to be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness, otherwise the same is liable to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of their contention, reliance is placed on M/s. Dwarka Dass Mafatia & Sons Vs. Board of Trustess of the Port of Bombay, (1989) 3, SCC 293; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nasli Naville Wadia and anther (2008) 3 SCC 279 and Ashoka Marketing Vs. PNB AIR 1991 SC 855.
6- On the other hand, Shri Y.P. Chandana, learned counsel for the respondent bank has heavily relied upon the definition of "unauthorized occupant" as given in Section 2(g) of the Act, which is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience :-
"unauthorised occupation:, in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. (emphasis supplied) 7- It has been urged that once tenancy of a tenant in respect of any public premises is determined for any reason whatsoever, it is beyond the domain of the Estate Officer or the Appellate Authority to go into the question behind determination of the tenancy and an eviction order is required to be passed by the Estate Officer. The learned counsel for the respondent bank relies upon a Division Bench judgement of Karanataka High Court in the case titled Indian Bank Bangalore Vs. M/s Blaze & Central (P.) Ltd and others , AIR 1986 PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 10of 24 Karnataka 258 where it was held that the plea of bonafide requirement by the landlord under the Act cannot be the subject of enquiry by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Act. Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench judgement of our own High Court in KT Corporation and another Vs. India Tourism Development Corporation and another. 2009 VI AD (Delhi) 115, where it was held that no fault can be found in seeking eviction of the licensees if the policy decision of ITDC was to ask for the market rent or market licence fee from its licensee even if the increase was 450 per cent higher than earlier licence fee, charged by the Corporation.
8- In Ashoka Marketing Vs. PNB (supra) , a contention was raised on behalf of the petitioners that many of the Corporations referred to in Section 2(e) 2(ii) of the Act like the Nationalized bank and Life Insurance Corporation or Trading Corporation and under the provisions of enactments, whereby they are constituted, these Corporations are required to carry on their business with a view to earn profit and that there is nothing to preclude these corporations to buy property in possession of tenants at a low price and after buying such property, evict the tenants after terminating the tenancy and thereafter sell the said property at a much higher value because the value of the property in possession of the tenant is much less as compared to vacant property. While relying on M/s Dwarka Dass Marfatia and Sons (supra), the Constitution Bench held as under:-
Every activity of a public authority especially in the background of the assumption on which such authority enjoys immunity from the rigour of the Rent Act must be informed by reasons and guided b the public interest. All exercise of discretion or power by public authorities as the respondent, in respect of dealing with tenants in respect of which they have been treated separately and distinctly from other landlords on the assumption that they would not act as private landlords must be judged by that standard. These observations were made in the context of the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 11of 24 whereby exemption from the provisions of the Act has been granted to premises belonging to the Bombay Port Trust. The consequence of giving overriding effect to the provisions of Public Premises Act is that premises belonging to companies and statutory bodies referred to in clause (2) and (3) of Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act would be exempted from the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The action of the companies and statutory bodies mentioned in clause (2) and (3) of Section 2(e) of Public Premises Act while dealing with their properties under the Public Premises Act will, therefore, have to be judged by the same standard."
9- In M/s Dwarka Dass Marfatia (supra) there was redevelopment of certain plots of land owned by Bombay Port Trust ,.On redevelopment of the plots, fresh lease deeds were executed in respect of the entire plot in favour of the lessee who was the major shareholder of the said plot. The action of the Bombay Port Trust was challenged on the ground that it would have been better and in the interest of all if a joint lease had been made in favour of major as well as minor holders of the entire plot of land . It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the public authorities as landlords who are exempted by the provisions of Rent Act must act in public interest . The action of public authority are amenable to judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. It was observed that in assailing the action of public authority, the onus is entirely on the petitioner to establish that the authority had terminated the tenancy or taken the proceedings for eviction not in public interest but for a collateral purpose or malafidely or that it had acted in a manner in violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On facts it was held that the appellant could not be allowed to contend that the decision of Bombay Port Trust to allot the plot to the major holder was not one of the feasible means of achieving the objectives of development. It was observed that it was not open to the appellant to contend that the Bombay Port Trust could have framed a better policy in a way in which both the goals, development and non eviction of existing tenants could have PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 12of 24 been achieved. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nasli Wadia (supra) it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that action of the State in terms of the provisions of 1971 Act should not be arbitrary, unreasonableness or malafide. I would like to extract para 39 of the report hereunder :-
" The statute, although, does not require a lengthy cross examination but the notice should be given an opportunity to file an effective show cause . An effective show cause can be filed when eviction if sought for a specified ground and the occupants must know the particulars in relation thereto."
Ashoka Marketing (supra) and Nusli Nivelli Wadia ( Supra were relied upon in a later Division Bench decision of Calcutta High Court in The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkatta and another Vs. Vijay Kumar Arya and others. MAT No. 2847/2007 and CAN No.10053/2007- decided on 02.02.2009 ( MANU/WB/0025/2009) and while holding that an instrumentality of the State has to act reasonably, it was observed as under:-
"As always, any act of the State or an instrumentality of the State has to answer to the demanding standards of Article 14 of the Constitution and a noticee under Section 4 of the said Act is not precluded from urging such ground before the estate officer. The entire purpose of the estate officer issuing notice to an alleged unauthorised occupant and the procedure to be followed under Section 5 of the said Act is rooted to the indispensable canons of natural justice:
Of course, in Indian Bank Bangalore Vs. M/s Blaze & Central (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court had taken the view that the bonafide requirement was not the subject of enquiry by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Act. , yet in view of the catena of authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the action of the State or the instrumentality of the State has to meet the standard of reasonableness and fairness and the specific observations in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nusli Naveli Wadia (supra) that a notice should be given opportunity to file an effective show cause, there can not be any PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 13of 24 doubt that eviction of a person from public premises has to be on a ground and the said ground must be reasonable. Taking any other view would make the enquiry before the Estate Officer to be a mere formality because the Estate Officer would be required to pass an eviction order simply on proof of the service of notice determining the tenancy. At the same time it is not necessary whether the said ground is a ground for eviction under the Rent Control legislation or not. Moreover, a noticee cannot be allowed to contend that another alternative would have been better and in public interest as also in the interest of the noticee.
10- I turn to the evidence produced before the Estate Officer in respect of bonafide requirement of the respondent bank. In appeal No.57/08 after proving the notice terminating the tenancy as Ex.P-3, postal receipt Ex.P-4 and AD card as Ex.P-5, PW 1 Mr.VP Mittal deposed :
"The bank was carrying on various activities such as acceptance of deposits, draft, TOP issuing, govt due acceptance viz. income tax dues, excise dues, customs, wealth tax & other allied govt. taxes on the behalf of branch. Bank was advancing the loans. Bank was also coordinating centre for pension a/c. for whole of Delhi of PNB branches & Bank was controlling the reimbursement to all the branches of Delhi towards pension payment made by them at different category of civil railways, defence & so many State Govt. pensions schemes to the retired employees. Bank also used to receive pension scroll claiming reimbursement and in turn bank claimed from service.. Bank of India and reimburse to branches on the receipt of the payment. Further the branch consisted the coordinating office of Central Board Direct taxes on behalf of PNB as a whole and on its receipt from its various branches it was remitting to government. We wanted to introduce telephone bill receipt service, draft payment clearance centre and other activities just as computerization, but that could not be installed due to paucity of the space and accommodation. The bank dropped the idea as the same could not be ( sic) implemented for want of the space. The branch is situated most ideally and in (sic) commercial centre.
PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 14of 24 Besides computers, the bank wants to extend to its customers modern customer system as encoders & computer which could not be installed due to paucity of the space. The business of the bank is fast expending & growing & more space is required. The strength of staff of bank branch during my tenure was about 100. The proper sitting arrangements & cabins etc. could not be made available to staff members & customers who used to be of high status & VIPs. No particular space could be provided to various distinguished customers & VIPs for want of the space, particularly in the pension departments. The bank bonafidely requires the suit premises for furtherance & expansion of its manifold activities"
This part of the testimony of the witness was not challenged during his cross examination.
In appeal No.63/08 (PNB Vs. Pearey Lal), the respondent bank had examined Shri D.R.Vij , the Manager of Karol Bagh Branch at the relevant time. On the ground of bonafide requirement of the bank, he stated thus :
"The premises in question are bonafidely required by the petitioner bank for its own use and furtherance of its own activity. The business of the bank is enormously increasing inasmuch as there was manifold activities and expansion of the bank. The bank was engaged in the work of govt. dues viz. Excise, customs dues, pension and other govt. allied dues, UTI business. The premises branch office is the Focal Point branch of the pensioner whose (sic) numbers have subsequently increased. There was besides above, demand from other branches for storing of their old records. The bank also required accommodation for some other departments like foreign exchange, housing loan department, export and import business. This branch was especially tipped for foreign business. The bank also wanted accommodation for installing computers and air conditioner. The business of the branch was to the tune of 15/16 crores when I took the charge in May, 1983, it increased to more than Rs,.21 crore within the span of 1-1/2 years and since then fast expanding. Besides myself as Senior Manager, there were three managers besides a regional Officers including other clerical PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 15of 24 staff and cashier staff. Total strength of branch staff was more than 90 including subordinate staff. The clientele of the bank is high and distinct gentry. Highly placed military officers visited the Branch. The bank was frequently visited by Senior Bank official and official from Ministry of Finance. There was great demand of lockers as all the existing lockers had been already leased out. For want of accommodation, strong room could not be expanded. The space was also required for customer coming for different purposes. For the expansion and growth of the bank business and activities and public at large in order to cater their needs, the present accommodation with the bank is highly insufficient and inadequate for bank needs premises in question for bonafide and has not other reasonably available accommodation. The bank is not (sic) actuated without ulterior motive but with sole purpose of serving the public at large. The bank does not want to let out the premises after eviction on enhanced rate. After the letting out the premises, there has been tremendous expansion of demand for more space and to provide latest modern services to the customers associated with bank e.g. Computerization."
During cross examination the witness admitted that the eviction notice had been given in respect of all the shops except three shops which had been in possession of Dr.Bhalla, who was the Chief Medical Officer of the bank. During cross examination, this witness stated that requirement of the additional premises for various activities specified earlier was based upon his assessment while working as Senior Manager of the Branch (from May, 1983 to March, 1985 ) coupled with instructions from Regional Manager/Zonal Manager. The witness admitted denied that there was no written instructions from the Regional Office in this regard. He denied the suggestion that the requirement was not bonafide or the same had been created at the instance of the officials of the bank for their personal gain. The witness further denied that the bank wanted to re-let the premises after getting it vacated on a higher rent.
PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 16of 24 11- I may mention that during proceedings before the Estate Officer in two
cases Shri VP Mittal was examined as witness on behalf of the bank while in other cases Shri D.R.Vij was examined as a witness on behalf of the bank . It has come on record that eviction under the Act was sought against all the tenants except three shops which had been let out to Dr.Bhalla who was the Chief Medical Officer of the bank. It could be inferred from the evidence produced by the appellants before the Estate Officer that Dr.Bhalla may not have been the full time employee of the respondent bank or that he may also have been entertaining the patients other than the employees of the respondent bank. But the fact remains that the action for eviction had not been initiated against Dr.Bhalla, for the convenience of the employees of the respondent bank. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the requirement of the bank was not bonafide or that the action taken was discriminatory or arbitrary, is not acceptable.
12- The contention that Shri D.R. Vij/Shri V.P.Mittal could not depose about the bonafide requirement as they had retired from the service of the Bank is not acceptable as they were Senior Officers in the concerned Branch, whereafter the action for eviction was initiated. They were the most relevant Officers to depose about the bonafide need of the respondent Bank.
13- It has been urged on behalf of the appellant/s that the shops in possession of the various tenants can not be used for any purpose other than shops. This contention is without any substance, as most of the shops are contiguous to each other, located on the ground floor of the building, a portion of the ground floor is already being used for the purpose of running a branch and even if some of the intervening walls can not be removed, the space can be used in furtherance of various activities and expansion of business of the bank, details whereof have been given by Shri D.R.Vij/Shri V.P. Mittal witness of the bank.
PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 17of 24 14- It has been urged by Shri D.K Rustagi, ld.counsel for the appellant (in appeal No 57/08 SS Khera Vs. PNB) that details of bonafide requirements by
stating material particulars have to be mentioned in the petition and it is not enough to state that the premises are bonafide required by the bank. It has been urged that there is distinction between the desire and requirement and if desire is genuine, it becomes requirement and if the requirement Is justified, it becomes bonafide requirement. It has been argued that in this particular case, the material particulars of bonafide requirement have not been pleaded in the petition, nor any evidence has been led to show that the requirement is bonafide. In support of his contention, ld.counsel places reliance on Mohan Lal Vs.Tirath Ram Chopra and others, 1982 (2) RCJ 161 and Rahabahar Production Vs.Rajendera K. Tandon, (1998) 4 SCC 49. Of course, in appeal No.57/08, the respondent bank has averred that the premises are required bonafide by the bank for its own use and in furtherance of its activities. The details of those activities of course, have not been mentioned in the petition under section 5 of the Act. It may however be mentioned that summary proceedings under section 5 of the Act can not be compared with the eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act, except the one specifically made applicable under the Act or the rules made thereunder (See Section 8 of the Act). In these appeals, the Estate Officer has not passed an eviction order simply on the basis of getting a reply from the noticee but both the parties were permitted to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. Reliance on Mohan Lal (supra) and Rahabar Production Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is totally misplaced.
15- In an action under the Act, once some material is placed on the record by the Govt. or the public corporation for eviction of an unauthroised occupant, the onus is entirely on such occupant to show that the action of the public authority is not in public interest or is malafide or is arbitrary. (See M/s Dwarka Dass PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 18of 24 Marfatia & Sons (supra) ). In this case, the appellants have not shown any thing which could exhibit any malafide or arbitrariness on the part of the respondent bank, except that the action has not been initiated Dr.K.D. Bhalla which has already been dealt with by me hereinabove.
16- It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that if there is requirement of some additional space by the respondent bank, it can be met by raising construction on the first and upper floors of the building. This contention is totally misconceived. A tenant/erstwhile tenant can not advise his landlord as to how should he act to fulfill his requirement, once the landlord has been able to show that additional space is required by him bonafidely. Similar contention raised on behalf of the smaller tenants in M/s Dwarka Dass Marfatia (supra) that the Bombay Port Trust instead of creating tenancy in the name of major shareholder after redevelopment of the plot ought to have created a joint tenancy in respect of all the shareholders, was negated. It was held :-
"....... It is not within the purview of a court to substitute a decision taken by a constituted authority simply because the decision sought to be substituted is a better one. Learned Additional Solicitor General, in our opinion, is therefore, right in contending that the appellant should not be allowed to contend that the decision of the Bombay Port Trust to allot the plot to the major holder is not one of the feasible means of achieving the objectives of development. It was not open to the appellant to contend that the Bombay Port Trust could have framed a better policy in a way in which both the goals, development and non-eviction of existing tenants could have been achieved......."
Under these circumstances, I am of the view that it can not be said that the premises were not bonafide required by the respondent bank. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants in this regard is found to be without any merit.
PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 19of 24 17- It has been urged by ld.counsel for the appellants that the action of
the respondent bank in seeking eviction of the appellants who are bonafide tenants under the respondent is in contravention of the guidelines issued by the Govt. of India in this behalf. The eviction orders issued by the Estate Officer are, therefore, liable to be set aside being in contravention of the guidelines. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the ld.counsel for the respondent that the guidelines were duly considered in Board's meeting, while processing the cases of the appellants and it was found that the cases of the appellants were not covered under the guidelines and hence it was decided to continue the proceedings initiated against the appellants. It has been urged that the guidelines issued by the Govt. of India can not supplant the statutory provisions under the Act and the same are simply advisory in nature. Shri Y.P.Chandana, Advocate refers to L.D. Nayyar & Sons Vs. Punjab National Bank, 151 (2008) DLT 27 and New India Vs. Nusli Wadia (supra) in support of his contention. I have gone through the minutes of the meeting held on 22/5/1992, 15/1/1997 and 13/1/2006 (copies of which have been placed on record) wherein the cases of the appellants were duly considered alongwith the cases of other tenants of PNB and it was decided to continue the eviction proceedings against the appellants. In L.D. Nayyar Vs. PNB (supra) while relying on Uttam Parkash Bansal Vs. LIC, 100 (2002) DLT 97 it was held that the administrative guidelines can not supplant the power to invoke the speedy remedy to evict tenants whose arrangements ended almost two decades ago. The guidelines can not be fetter on the statutory power conferred under the PP Act. Similarly, in New India Assurance Co. Vs. Nusli Navelli Wadia (supra) it was held that issuance of such guidelines was not being controlled by statutory provisions, the effect thereof was advisory in character and no legal right was conferred upon the tenant by such guidelines. Otherwise also, the guidelines did not debar the respondent bank from seeking eviction of the tenants on justified and well founded grounds, like in the present PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 20of 24 case where the eviction was sought on the ground of bonafide requirement in furtherance of banking activities.
18- In appeal No.67/08 and 63/08 a feeble attempt was made by the ld.cousnel for the appellants to challenge the eviction for want of proper legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has been urged by Shri S.K.Chaudhry, ld.counsel for the appellants that though the rent was being paid by the appellants on month to month basis, after the initial tenancy of three years had come to an end, yet it could not have changed the tenancy month which started from 11th of every month and ended on 10th of the succeeding month, as per the lease deed dated 11/6/1964. Similarly, Shri D.K.Rustagi, Advocate has submitted that in respect of Shop No.12, 12-A and 12-B, the tenancy month was starting from 19th of the month and coming to an end on 18 th of the succeeding month. Of course, in both these cases the respective notices have terminated the tenancy by end of English calendar month. The same is however, not material in view of the amendment in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. As per Section 106 as it stood prior to its amendment w.e.f. 1-1-2003 , the lease of immovable property for any purpose other than agriculture or manufacturing purpose could be determined with 15 days notice expiring with the end of month of the tenancy. As per the amendment in Section 106 of T.P.Act, tenancy other than agriculture or manufacturing purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by 15 days' notice. As per sub section (3) of Section 106 of T.P.Act, a notice u/sub section (1) shall not be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under sub-section (1) , that is 15 days' notice, provided if any suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in sub section (1). In all the nine cases, the respective notices terminating the notice were not only duly proved but were even not disputed on behalf of the appellants during the course of arguments. The PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 21of 24 eviction proceedings were initiated before the Estate Officer under section 5 of the Act, after expiry of period of 15 days and thus, the proceedings can not be held to be invalid on the ground of any defect in the notice.
19- It has been urged by Shri S.K.Chaudhary, Advocate , learned counsel for the appellants that provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 are applicable to all the premises belonging to the Govt. He has taken me through Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act which is extracted hereunder :-
"Act not to apply to certain premises. - Nothing in this Act shall apply -
a) to any premises belonging to the Government;
b) to any tenancy or other like relationship created by a
grant from the Government in respect of the premises taken on lease, or requisitioned, by the Government.
Provided that where any premises belonging to Government have been or are lawfully held by any person by virtue of an agreement with the Government or otherwise, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, the provisions of the Act shall apply to such tenancy.
c) ...............
d) ..............."
Shri S.K.Chaudhary, Advocate has laid much emphasis on the proviso and has urged that admittedly the premises in this case have been lawfully let by the authorized officer of the PNB and therefore, the provisions of DRC Act are applicable to the premises subject matter of the appeals and eviction order could not have been passed by the Estate Officer as the Act was not applicable. The contention of the ld.counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected for more than one reason. Firstly, as per Section 3(a), Delhi Rent Control Act does not apply to any premises belonging to the Govt. In my view, the proviso to clause PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 22of 24
(b) refers to those cases where some grants etc. has been obtained by some person from the Govt. in respect of any premises and the said premises have been let out by that person to a third person. It seems that the relationship of third person with the grantee of the Govt. shall be governed by the DRC Act, provided the said grantee had lawfully let out the premises to the third person by virtue of an agreement with the Govt. Secondly, the premises in question here does not belong to the Govt. but to a govt. corporation covered u/section 2
(e)2(ii) of the Act . On the top of it, the law is well settled in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. Vs. PNB (supra) that the provisions of PP Act to the extent they cover premises falling within the ambit of Delhi Rent Control Act overrides the provisions of Rent Control Act and a person in unauthorsied occupation of public premises u/section 2(e) of the Act can not invoke the protection of Rent Control Act.
20- Shri S.K.Chaudhary, Advocate has very strenuously canvassed before me that as per provisions of Section 9 of the Banking Regulation Act , non banking assets could not be retained by the bank for any period exceeding seven years. The building in question i.e. Punjab National Bank Shopping Complex is admittedly a non banking asset. The same was therefore required to be disposed of within a period of 7 years of coming into force of the aforesaid Act and the respondent bank thus, could not have resorted to eviction of the appellants under the provisions of Section 2(e) read with Section 5 of the Act. This contention of ld.counsel is also without any merit. Admittedly, the Karol Bagh Branch of PNB was and is being run from a part of this very premises. If at any point of time, a portion of the building was not required by the respondent bank in furtherance of its activities, the whole building will not become a non banking asset. The respondent bank was within its rights to let out the portion of the premises for a specific period if the same was not needed by it as had been done in the present case. Thus, the contention of the ld.defence counsel that the PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 23of 24 part of the building was non building asset or that the same was required to be disposed of in accordance with Section 9 of the Banking Regulation Act is rejected , being without any merit.
21- In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in these nine appeals referred to in para 1 of the judgement. The same are accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.25,000/- in each case. A copy of this order be placed in files of appeal i.e. SS Khera vs. PNB (appeal No.58/08, Pearey Lal vs. PNB (appeal No 63/08); Fair Deals Vs. PNB (appeal No. 65/08); M/s Style Craft Vs. PNB (appeal No. 67/08) ; M/s Style Craft Vs. PNB (appeal No. 68/08); Khatau Makanji Vs. PNB (Appeal No 66/08); Khatau Makanji Vs. PNB (Appeal No. 70/08) and Sheila Nanda Vs. PNB (Appeal No.69/08). However, the appellants shall not be dispossessed from the premises in question for a period of 30 days from today in view of the directions of Hon'ble High Court dated 14.09.2004 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1486 of 1988, titled as M/s Style Craft Vs. Punjab National Bank and another.
Records of learned Estate Officer be sent back immediately alongwith a copy of this order.
Appeal files be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court. ( G.P. MITTAL ) On this 26th March, 2010 District Judge -1 : Delhi. PPA No.57/08 etc. Page 24of 24