Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Get D India Ltd. Manager vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. ... on 3 July, 2019
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, Navin Sinha
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5173 of 2019
[@ Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10690/2018]
GET & D INDIA LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2018 in Writ Petition (L) No. 20 of 2018 passed by the High Court. The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the order rejecting the application dated 20.04.2006 by which prayer was made to set aside the order dated 19.01.2005. The respondent – New India Assurance Company Ltd. filed an application (bearing No. 003-A of 2004) before the Estate Officer, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. in which the applicant prayed for eviction of appellant and any other person who may be in unauthorized occupation of the premises and to pay damages to the applicant for its unauthorized occupation of the premises w.e.f 01.04.2002 at the rate of Rs.3,26,400/- per month. Notice was issued by the Estate Officer on the said application on 05.05.2004 and written statement was filed by the opposite party showing cause Signature Not Verified to the notice.
Digitally signed bySANJAY KUMAR Date: 2019.07.08
The Estate Officer passed an order directing the 17:09:03 IST Reason:
appellant to file an affidavit on or before 14.02.2005 with a copy 1 to applicant’s advocate and cross examination will be held on the next date of hearing. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an affidavit in evidence was filed. Thereafter, an application for amendment of the main application was filed by the respondent company to amend certain pleadings; which was allowed. Subsequently, on 20.04.2006, the appellant filed an application for recall of order dated 19.01.2005; which was rejected in the year 2017. Challenging the said order, the writ petition was filed by the appellant, which High Court has dismissed by its impugned judgment. The High Court, while dismissing the writ petition, has in substance held that the appellant never questioned the order dated 19.01.2005 and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2018, hence the writ petition is barred by latches. The High Court further held that subsequent order could not be challenged without challenging the order dated 19.01.2005.
Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court has taken too technical view of the matter. Order dated 19.01.2005 was prayed to be recalled by making an application on 20.04.2006 which application could be decided only in the year 2017, hence, the writ petition was not barred by latches and the view taken by the High Court is not correct. He further submits that in view of the judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia and Anr. [(2008) 3 SCC 279], when an application is a composite application under Sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act 1971’), it is the landlord who has to lead evidence and order dated 19.01.2005 2 ought to have been recalled with the direction to the respondent company to lead evidence.
Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents refuting the submission made by learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that in pursuance of order dated 19.01.2005, the appellant had filed an affidavit in evidence, hence, the order was complied with and when the order was complied with, there was no question of challenging the same and the matter has been prolonged due to one or the other reason, due to which, the application has not yet been decided on merits. He further submits that in the nature of the present case, no evidence was required to be led by the landlord to prove allegations in his application. He submits that since in the application it is stated that after eviction of the premises it is required to accommodate the Senior Executive Officers of the respondent company for which the respondents are ready to produce necessary documentary evidence including register to prove its point. He submits that in view of the fact that the application is pending for last sixteen years, this Court may dispose of the matter directing the Estate Officer to dispose of the matter at an early date.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel submits that without prejudice to his rights and without entering into other issues, this Court may dispose of the matter and permit him to produce the documentary evidence before the Estate Officer and the Estate Officer may proceed in accordance with law. 3 In view of facts of the present case specially the fact that application under the Act 1971 filed for eviction of the appellant is pending for last sixteen years, without entering into various issues raised by learned counsel for the parties, the ends of justice be served in disposing this appeal with following directions:
1. The respondent company, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents before us, shall produce documentary evidence to prove its point on the next date before the Estate Officer.
2. The appellant shall have right to rebut all those evidences which opportunity be allowed by the Estate Officer.
3. The Estate Officer shall proceed to decide the application as early as possible.
…....................J. [ASHOK BHUSHAN] …....................J. [NAVIN SINHA] NEW DELHI;
July 3, 2019.
4
ITEM NO.51 COURT NO.11 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10690/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-02-2018 in WPL No. 20/2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay) GET D INDIA LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) [Applications for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and permission to file additional documents] WITH SLP(C) No. 10828/2018 (IX) (IA No. 4048/2018 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING) Date : 03-07-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv.
Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Sarangana, Adv.
Mr. Ketan Paul, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Bhushan, Adv.
For M/S. Khaitan & Co.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gola, Adv.
Ms. Deepika Kalia, Adv.
Mr. Kapish Seth, Adv.
Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10690/2018 Leave granted.
The civil appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. 5 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. SLP(C) No. 10828/2018 Delay condoned.
The special leave petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (RENU KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed order is placed on the file]
6