Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Dipak Banerjee vs Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty on 30 July, 1987
10) The Appellants, however, would submit that the
occupation of the premises by the Opponent No. 3 son-in-law of
Motichand G. Shah, would neither result in subletting nor
otherwise parting with possession of the premises. To buttress this
submission, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in
the case of Gopal Saran vs. Satyanarayana1; Dipak Banerjee vs.
Lilabati Chakraborty2; Jagan Nath (deceased) Through Lrs.3 and
lastly, unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in
the case of Nandini J. Shah and Anr. vs. Life Insurance Corporation
of India and Ors.4 decided on 12th October, 2012.
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Punjab National Bank And Ors. Etc. Etc on 7 August, 1990
Counsel for the Corporation has also pressed into service another
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashoka Marketing Limited
vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.6 and contended that the
provisions of Public Premises Act would override the provisions of
the Rent Control Legislation.
Gopal Saran vs Satyanarayana on 20 February, 1989
10) The Appellants, however, would submit that the
occupation of the premises by the Opponent No. 3 son-in-law of
Motichand G. Shah, would neither result in subletting nor
otherwise parting with possession of the premises. To buttress this
submission, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in
the case of Gopal Saran vs. Satyanarayana1; Dipak Banerjee vs.
Lilabati Chakraborty2; Jagan Nath (deceased) Through Lrs.3 and
lastly, unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in
the case of Nandini J. Shah and Anr. vs. Life Insurance Corporation
of India and Ors.4 decided on 12th October, 2012.
Section 4 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971
Section 2 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Nandini J.Shah vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 12 October, 2012
14) To get over this position, Counsel for the Appellants
had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Nandini J. Shah (supra). In that case, the eviction of
the Appellants from public premises was sought on the ground that
Vilasben, the original lessee, transferred the premises and part
thereof to three companies. The lessee contended that these
companies were closely held family concerns and it was not a case
Page 15 of 23
J.V.Salunke,PA
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:35:20 :::
LPA.11&12.2013.judgment.doc
of assignment in their favour or the original tenant having lost
control over the premises. The Court found that Vilasben was
director and shareholder of the companies. The Court then noted
that the tenant, while retaining the control of the business,
including her relatives - son, daughter, husband formed private
limited company; and even if the company may have separate
juristic entity in law, in that case, action under the Public Premises
Act cannot be countenanced. This decision, in our view, is of no
avail to the Appellants. Firstly because, in the present case,
Opponent No. 1 has nothing to do with the profession of Opponent
No. 3, who has been allowed to use and occupy part of the public
premises for his independent profession, without permission of the
Corporation. Merely because Opponent No. 3 is the son-in-law of
Opponent No. 1 would not extricate the Opponent No. 1 from
ensuring that no other person should be allowed to occupy the
public premises let out to it, who is not directly associated with the
business of the lessee or when the lessee has no stakes in the
business of that person. The Respondent Corporation having
issued termination notice dated 15th September, 2000, on this
count, permission given to and authority vested in the Opponent
Page 16 of 23
J.V.Salunke,PA
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:35:20 :::
LPA.11&12.2013.judgment.doc
No. 1, to use and occupy the premises, is snapped and on receipt
of termination notice, the Opponent No. 1, along with the other
occupants claiming through the Opponent No. 1, ought to have
acted upon the notice, by vacating the premises. Having failed to
do so, each one of them, on and from expiry of termination notice
period, has become unauthorised occupant of the premises and for
which reason, amenable to action under Section 4 of the Act of
1971.
Tulsi Rai vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ... on 22 July, 2002
17) Counsel for the Corporation has justly pressed into
service exposition of the Division Bench of our High Court in an
unreported decision in the case of Rai and Company vs. Life
Insurance Corporation of India5, decided on 12th July, 2010.
1