w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v/s Exalt Service Pvt. Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L27109DL1973GOI006454

Company & Directors' Information:- S A L STEEL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L29199GJ2003PLC043148

Company & Directors' Information:- M M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109TZ1996PTC006849

Company & Directors' Information:- G. O. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100PB2007PTC031033

Company & Directors' Information:- J M G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105BR1992PTC004985

Company & Directors' Information:- H L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27107AS1992PTC003726

Company & Directors' Information:- K V M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29141DL1988PTC031248

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104JH1973PTC000998

Company & Directors' Information:- R. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2009PTC193047

Company & Directors' Information:- M M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107MH2001PTC131270

Company & Directors' Information:- B L STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1981PTC034021

Company & Directors' Information:- R K G STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109DL2004PTC128852

Company & Directors' Information:- V B STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112MH2010PTC211691

Company & Directors' Information:- I B STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28910MH2010PTC211344

Company & Directors' Information:- EXALT STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U27109WB2003PTC096944

Company & Directors' Information:- J S C STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27106UP2013PTC061568

Company & Directors' Information:- S. M. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2013PTC239811

Company & Directors' Information:- R K P STEEL LTD [Active] CIN = L27109WB1980PLC033206

Company & Directors' Information:- C P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2008PTC127447

Company & Directors' Information:- A. K. J. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28112WB2010PTC144880

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- C D STEEL PVT LTD [Under Liquidation] CIN = U27109WB1981PTC034340

Company & Directors' Information:- T M S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U02710TZ1996PTC007498

Company & Directors' Information:- P M R STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102DL2003PTC122675

Company & Directors' Information:- C T STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB2005PTC106634

Company & Directors' Information:- P G STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24111AS1998PTC005409

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090DL1987PTC027835

Company & Directors' Information:- J S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52190CT1978PTC001432

Company & Directors' Information:- U M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27209TN1986PTC013670

Company & Directors' Information:- L N STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310WB2007PTC118206

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. W. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910UP2011PTC043976

Company & Directors' Information:- R. N. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2007PTC116588

Company & Directors' Information:- P M STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27105MP1982PTC001915

Company & Directors' Information:- M R STEEL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100TG2013PTC088808

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- C K STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29150WB1975PTC030259

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL & COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1991PTC053960

Company & Directors' Information:- N S STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27106PB1980PTC004266

Company & Directors' Information:- R C STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28112AS1980PTC001811

Company & Directors' Information:- P D STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC038426

Company & Directors' Information:- A K STEEL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1961PTC003566

Company & Directors' Information:- H S P STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27100MH2013PTC242983

Company & Directors' Information:- D H STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109RJ2012PTC039742

Company & Directors' Information:- R A STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2014PTC253625

Company & Directors' Information:- N. V. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310DL2009PTC186541

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28939DL2012PTC244467

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1958PTC001309

    C.O. No. 1833 of 2018

    Decided On, 31 July 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT BASU

    For the Petitioner: Tapas Kumar Banerjee, Souvik Nandy, Advocates. For the Respondent: Anirudha Chatterjee, Vidushi Chokani, Vikram Nadchra, Soumava Ghosh, Vikram Wadehra, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Biswajit Basu, J.

1. The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the respondent in an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act of 1971' in short) and is directed against the order No. 10 dated November 15, 2017 passed in Misc. (Arbitration) Appeal No. 51 of 2017 by the learned District Judge Burdwan. The said appeal is now pending before the Second Court of learned Additional District Judge at Assansol, Dist. Paschim Burdwan and has been renumbered as Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 2016.

2. The learned appeal Court below by the order impugned has directed the petitioner to restore the electric and water supply to the Mohan Kumar Mongalam Park at Durgapur, Dist. Burdwan (hereinafter referred to as 'the said park' in short)

3. The issue which falls for consideration in the present revisional application is whether the Estate Officer in a proceeding for eviction of unauthorised occupants of the public premises or the District Judge in an appeal from an order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer has the jurisdiction to pass an order requiring the landlord to take measures for essential supply or service to the public premises.

A. The following facts are relevant to decide the aforesaid issue:-

4. The petitioner floated tender inviting applications from eligible operators to run the said park for a period of ten years commencing from April 17, 2006 ending on April 16, 2016. The opposite party was found eligible in the said tender and in pursuance whereof an agreement granting license to the opposite party to run the said park for the said period was entered into by and between the parties. In terms of the said agreement the opposite party was required to bear the water and electricity charges for running the said park as per actual consumption.

5. The petitioner on the expiry of the said license period issued the notice dated May 17, 2016 directing the opposite party to stop operating the said park and to surrender the possession of the same within seven days to the petitioner and also to pay outstanding license fees, electricity and water charges. The opposite party failed to comply with the said notice and as a consequence thereof the electric and water supply to the said park was disconnected. The petitioner thereafter initiated a proceeding under Section 5 of the said Act of 1971 being Case No. Estate/Q-B/21/2016 before the Estate Officer, inter alia, for eviction of the opposite party from the said park.

6. The opposite party aggrieved by the disconnection of electricity and water supply to the said park moved a writ petition being W.P. No. 10286 (W) of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed of on September 15, 2016 by the following order:-

"The writ petitioner, from 2006, as a licensee was running an amusement park in Durgapur under the Steel Authority of India Limited(SAIL). The license was for ten years. Admittedly, the writ petitioner could not run the park. It had much unpaid dues on account of licence fee, electricity, water and other charges towards SAIL.

Mr. Nandy, learned advocate for SAIL submits that the licence expired by efflux of time. Steel authority is not interested in extending it any more. In those circumstances, they cut off or discontinued the electricity supply, other services etc at the park.

The agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause. The arbitration could not commence due to the transfer of the Arbitrator.

In my opinion, the disputes between the parties can only be resolved by arbitration and not by the writ court. The said respondent is directed to appoint a new arbitrator within four weeks of the communication of this order. The new Arbitrator shall conclude the arbitration proceedings within the three months of his appointment.

Till an award is passed by the learned arbitrator, the writ petitioner will be allowed to run the amusement park on the same terms and conditions as they were running the park for these ten years, on an absolutely temporary basis without creation of any rights in their favour. They will pay the monthly licence fee as user charges and the current electricity, water and other charges.

Proceedings under the Recovery of Public Premises Unauthorised Occupancy Act, 1976 may be continued, against the writ petitioner. No order will be passed till an award is published by the Arbitrator.

In default of making any payment, as stipulated above, by the writ petitioner, this interim arrangement may be terminated by SAIL. The recovery of public premises proceedings may, in that event be concluded by an order."

In terms of the aforesaid order the electricity and the water supply was restored to the said park on September 27, 2016.

7. The sole arbitrator appointed regarding the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of the said license agreement made the following award on February 28, 2017:-

"A) No charge for electricity and water is payable for the period when electricity and water meters were not installed.

B) Respondent should submit names of three licenced valuers to the claimant within 15 Days from today. The claimant to choose any one from them and inform the respondent within next 3 days to be engaged by the respondent for valuation of the assets at MKM park. The claimant to render all help to the valuer in his work. The work has to be completed within next 15 days. Copy of the valuation report is to be submitted to the claimant and the undersigned immediately after completion.

C) Respondent has to prepare bills for unpaid licence fees for the period 17.04.2006-16.04.2006 as per licence agreement and prevailing rules. No interest should be charged on delayed payment of licence fees up to 26.05.2011 and on service tax up to 30.06.2012. The bills should be submitted to the claimant within 30 days from today.

D) Differential amount of B and C above is to be paid by the concerned party to the other within 60 days from today. Once this payment is made the respondent gets the ownership of the assets at MKM park."

8. An application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been taken out by the petitioner for setting aside of the said award which is pending disposal before the learned District Judge, Burdwan, being Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 27 of 2017.

9. The petitioner thereafter by a letter dated May 06, 2017 informed the opposite party that the temporary arrangement of supply of electricity and water in the said park cannot continue in terms of the order dated September 15, 2016 passed in W.P. No. 10286 (W) of 2016 as with the publication of the award in the arbitration proceeding between the parties the said arrangement has come to an end and as such the electric and water supply to the said park would be disconnected on May 13, 2017. The petitioner pursuant to the said notice disconnected the electric and water supply to the said park.

10. The Estate Officer thereafter by the judgment and order dated June 06, 2017 allowed the Case No. Estate/QB/21/2016 thereby directing the opposite party to vacate the said park within fifteen days from the date of the said order i.e. June 20, 2017. The relevant portion of the said order of eviction is reproduced below:-

"Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, I hereby order the Respondent M/s Exalt Services Pvt. Ltd. and all or any other persons claiming under it who may be found to be in occupation of the public premises, i.e. Petitioner's Mohan Kumar Mangalam Park or any part thereof, as described in Schedule A herewith, to vacate the said premises within 15 days from the date of this order i.e. by 20th June, 2017 and surrender its occupation to the Petitioner along with all the Items of the Petitioner as mentioned in the Joint Inventory of Assets dated 17th April, 2006 contained in Schedule B herewith. In the event of refusal or failure to comply with this order within the period specified above, the said Respondent M/s Exalt Services Pvt. Ltd. and all other presons claiming under it are liable to be evicted from the said premises as mentioned in Schedule A, along with recovery of all Items of the Petitioner as mentioned in Schedule B, if need be, by the use of such force as may be necessary.

However, no order is passed at this stage for removal of the structures of the Respondent claimed by the Respondent under CI. 1.05 of the Terms and Conditions or for recovery of outstanding dues and damages for unauthorised use and occupation as claimed by the Petitioner. Instead, the Petitioner is given liberty to apply for the same later under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, if permissible under the decision of Misc. Arb. Case No. 27 of 2017 filed by the Petitioner in the Court of the ld. District Judge, Burdwan."

11. The opposite party being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of eviction preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the said Act 1971 out of which the present revisional application arises.

12. The opposite party in the proceeding initiated by the petitioner for setting aside the arbitral award being Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 27 of 2017 filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for restoration of electric and water supply to the said park. The learned District Judge by the Order No. 11 dated September 14, 2017 dismissed the said application holding that the arbitration proceeding is not the appropriate forum to give the reliefs sought for and granted liberty to the opposite party to ventilate it's grievances before the Appellate Court where the order of eviction is under challenge.

13. The opposite party thereafter on September 15, 2017 filed an application in the connected appeal praying restoration of electricity and water supply to the said park. The learned Judge of the appeal Court below allowed the said application by the order impugned holding that the award made by the sole arbitrator since is under challenge the opposite party is entitled to run the said park and is also entitled to get supply of electricity and water in the said park on payment license fees and charges of electricity and water in terms of the order passed in the writ petition being W.P. No. 10286(W) of 2016. Moreover when the operation of the order of eviction has been stayed the opposite party is entitled to said essential supplies.

B. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner:-

14. Mr. Tapas Kumar Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Judge of the appeal Court below has committed serious error in holding that the arbitration proceeding between the parties is still pending as an application for setting aside the award passed in the said arbitration proceeding has not yet been disposed of. He submits that the said arbitration proceeding has been terminated with the publication of the arbitral award in terms of Section 32(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the ad hoc arrangement for supply of electric and water to the said park made in terms of the order dated September 15, 2016 passed in W.P. No. 10286(W) of 2016 pending disposal of the said arbitration proceeding ended with the publication of the said award.

15. Mr. Banerjee, further submits that direction for restoration of essential services in an appeal under Section 9 of the said Act is beyond the scope of such an appeal. He by referring the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BANATWALA AND COMPANY VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 13 SUPREME COURT CASES 446 submits that if the opposite party has any grievance with regard to supply of any essential services in the said park, it has to resort to the relevant provisions of the Rent Control Legislation, in the present case the West Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 to resolve it and only the authority under those provisions of the said Act is competent to deal with such an issue. Mr. Banerjee, referring to the Division Bench decision in the case of ASIAN LEATHER LIMITED & ANOTHER Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & OTHERS reported in 2007 (3) CHN 476 submits that the District Judge has no power to direct the petitioner to restore electricity and water supply to the said park as the provisions of the said Act of 1971 does not confer such power to the said Court.

Mr. Banerjee, concludes his arguments by submitting that the opposite party seeking the same relief earlier had filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 27 of 2017 which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Burdwan, by the Order No. 11 dated September 14, 2017, therefore, the prayer of the opposite party in the appeal for restoration of electricity and water supply in the said park is barred by the principles of res judicata. C. Argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party:-

16. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party responding to the argument of Mr. Banerjee submits that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the license agreement and in terms of the said agreement the petitioner is obliged to supply water and electricity to the said park subject to payment of charges thereof. The order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer is under challenge in the appeal, the said order since has not yet attained finality. The opposite party is entitled to run the said park. The electricity and water supply to the said park since are essential services in running and operating the said park, the appeal Court being a Civil Court is competent to direct restoration of such services in exercise of it's power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly when exercise of such power has not been prohibited by any of the provisions of the said Act of 1971.

Mr. Chatterjee in support of his such contention places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. Vs. MACHADO BROTHERS AND OTHERS reported in 2004 (11) SCC 168.

17. Mr. Chatterjee by referring to a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of BAKUL RANI DEY Vs. NANI BALA DEBI reported in 86 CWN 943 submits that the power conferred upon the controller requiring the landlord to take measures for maintenance of the essential services of the tenanted property can be exercised by the appeal Court below being a Civil Court as the said provisions does oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to enforce the rights and obligations of the landlord and the tenant in the matter of maintaining essential services.

18. Mr. Chatterjee concludes his argument by submitting that the right of the tenant to get supply of electricity without the consent of the owner of the tenanted property is well recognised, to get support to his such contention he refers the decision of the Special Bench judgment of this Court in the case of ABHIMANYU MAZUMDAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2011 CAL 64.

C. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of materials on record the Court decides the issue involved in the present revisional application as follows:-

19. The award in the arbitration proceeding between the parties was passed on February 28, 2017, an ad hoc arrangement for supply of electricity and water in the said park was made by the order dated September 15, 2016 passed in W.P. No. 10286 (W) of 2016 till an award was being passed by the arbitrator in the said arbitration proceeding, therefore, in terms of the said order passed in the said writ petition the said ad hoc arrangement of supply of electricity and water in the said park came to an end with the making of the said arbitral award.

Moreover it is rightly submitted by Mr. Banerjee, that by virtue of Section 32(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the arbitration proceeding between the parties was terminated when the final arbitral award was passed in accordance with Section 31 thereof.

The learned Judge of the appeal Court below therefore has committed error of law in holding that the arbitral dispute between the parties has not yet been ended with the passing of the arbitral award on February 28, 2017 as the said award is under challenge in a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as such the petitioner is required to restore the electricity and water supply to the said park in terms of the order dated September 15, 2016 passed in W.P. No. 10286 (W) of 2016.

20. The application filed in the Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 27 of 2007 by the opposite party for supply of electricity and water to the said park was dismissed on the ground that the Court where the said proceeding is pending is not competent to grant the said relief to the opposite party therefore the doctrine of res judicata would not operate as a bar to the prayer of the opposite party made in the appeal for the similar relief, the argument of Mr. Banerjee, in this regard, therefore, is of no substance.

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2011) 13 SUPREME COURT CASES 446 (supra) has considered a question as to whether the provisions for fixation of standard rent, and provisions prescribing other obligations for the landlord such as maintenance of essential services under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are applicable in respect of public premises which is otherwise covered by the provisions of the said Act of 1971.

In the said decision it has been held that the provision of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 shall govern the relationship between the public undertakings and their occupants to the extent the said Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 covers and the other aspects of the relationship between the landlord and the tenants, not covered by the said Act of 1971.

22. Paragraphs 85 and 99 of the aforesaid report being relevant are reproduced below:-

"85. We have noted the observations of a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Jain Ink Mfg. Co. that the Public Premises Act has a very limited application, whereas the Rent Actis an Act with much wider application than the Public Premises Act. In the present case, the subject of fixation of standard rent and restoration of essential services by the landlord are covered under the MRC Act, but in no way under the Public Premises Act. The Public Premises Act, in fact does not claim to cover these subjects. As held by the Constitution Bench in Kesoram Industries Ltd, the Court has to look at the substance of the matter. Regard must be had to the enactment as a whole, to its main objects and scope of its provisions. Incidental and superficial encroachments are to be disregarded. Eviction and recovery of arrears of rent are alone covered under the Public Premises Act. The subject of fixation of rent is different and independent from eviction as held by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Bharath Gold Mines. That being the position, there is no conflict between the MRC Act and the Public Premises Act when it comes to the provisions in the MRC Act with respect to fixation of standard rent and requiring the landlord to maintain the essential services and supplies. Therefore, the provisions of the MRC Act in that behalf cannot in any way be said to be repugnant to those under the Public Premises Act. The presumption is in favour of constitutionality, and the Court is not expected to strike down a provision unless the conflict is a real one.

In the present matter there is no such real conflict.

99. In the circumstances, we hold as follows:

(a) The provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 with respect to fixation of standard rent for premises, and requiring the landlord not to cut off or withhold essential supply or service, and to restore the same when necessary, are not in conflict with or repugnant to any of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

(b) The provisions of the Public Premises Act, 1971 shall govern the relationship between the public undertakings covered under the Act and their occupants to the extent they provide for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises, recovery of arrears of rent or damages for such unauthorised occupation, and other incidental matters specified under the Act.

(c) The provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 shall govern the relationship between the public undertakings and their occupants to the extent this Act covers the other aspects of therelationship between the landlord and tenants, not covered under the Public Premises Act, 1971.

(d) The application of the appellant and similar applications of the tenants for fixation of standard rent or for restoration of essential supplies and services when necessary, shall be maintainable under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999."

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the aforesaid report has summed up the scope of the different chapters of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and the provisions thereof under those chapters. The said paragraphs are quoted below for ready reference:-

"24. The MRC Act consists of sixty sections which are divided into nine separate chapters, Chapter I is on preliminary provisions, Chapter II contains the provisions regarding fixation of standard rent and permitted increase, Chapter III contains the provisions concerning relief against forfeiture, Chapter IV is for recovery of possession, or eviction of the tenant by the landlord, Chapter V contains the special provisions for recovery of possession in certain cases such as where the premises are owned by members of the armed forces, scientists, etc., Chapter VI contains the provisions regarding sub-tenancies and other matters concerning tenancies, Chapter VII contains provisions regarding jurisdiction of the courts, suits, appeals, practice and procedure, Chapter VIII contains provisions for the summary disposal of certain applications and Chapter IX contains the miscellaneous provisions.

25. As stated earlier, the Preamble to the MRC Act states that it is an Act relating to five subjects, namely, (i) control of rent, (ii) repairs of certain premises, (iii) eviction, (iv) encouraging the construction of new houses by assuring fair return of investment by the landlord, and (v) matters connected with the purpose mentioned above. Section 2 of the Act gives the applicability of the Act. Sub-section (1) thereof lays down that in the first instance, the Act applies to premises let for the purposes of residence, education, business, trade or storage, and in the areas specified in Schedule I and Schedule II of the Act. Schedules I and II mention the cities and towns to which this Act applies."

24. The object and the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 as it appears on comparison are in pari materia with the object and provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

Therefore, following the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in (2011) 13 SUPREME COURT CASES 446 (supra) it can safely be concluded that subjects of fixation of standard rent, restoration of essential services by landlord in respect of public premises are covered by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 not by the provisions of the said Act of 1971 but the subject of eviction of unauthorised occupants of the public premises is covered by the said Act of 1971.

25. The said Act of 1971 has been enacted to provide for a speedy machinery for eviction of the unauthorised occupants from the public premises. The provision of Section 5 of the said Act of 1971 has been amended by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 2015 with effect from June 22, 2015 to achieve the said object of the said Act of 1971. The Estate Officer under the amended provision of Section 5 of the said Act of 1971 is required to specify a date in the order of eviction for vacating the public premises which is not later than fifteen days from the date of the said order.

A proviso has been added to the Section 5 by the aforesaid amendment Act requiring the Estate Officer to dispose of the eviction proceeding as expeditiously as possible and to make all endeavour to issue the order within fifteen days of the date specified in the notice under sub-section (1) or sub- section (1-A), as the case may be, of Section 4 thereof.

26. Section 9 of the said Act of 1971 has also under gone an amendment by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 2015 and the sub-section(4) of Section 9thereof after the said amendment reads as under:-

"9. Appeals.- (1)..................................

(2)....................................

(a)...............................

(b)................................

(c)................................

(3).....................................

(4) Every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the appellate officer as expeditiously as possible and every endeavour shall be made to dispose of the appeal finally within one month from the date of filing the appeal, after providing the parties an opportunity of being heard.

(5)...................................

(6)....................................."

27. The object of the said Act of 1971 to evict the unauthorised occupants of the public premises expeditiously which has been sought to be bolstered by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 2015 would be completely frustrated if an unauthorised occupants of a public premises is allowed to resort to the provisions of essential repairs under chapter IX of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 in an eviction proceeding under Section 5 of the said Act of 1971 or in an appeal under Section 9 thereof arising out of such eviction proceeding since adjudication on the issues of essential repairs/service would hinder in achieving the main object of the said Act of 1971. In view of the said specific object of the said Act of 1971 as discussed above the ratio of law laid down in 86 CWN 943 (supra) is not applicable in respect of public premises.

28. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law that the provision of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure recognizes the inherent power of every Civil Court to pass necessary orders to sub-serve the ends-of- justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court and such inherent power can be exercised by a Civil Court unless expressly prohibited by any other provisions of the Code as has been held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in 2004 (11) SCC 168 (supra). But in view of the specific object and scope of the provisions of the said Act of 1971 that those provisions would only govern the relationship between the public undertakings covered under the said Act of 1971 and their occupants to the extent they provide for eviction of unauthorised occupants from p

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ublic premises, recovery of rent or damages for such unauthorised occupation, and other incidental matters specified under the Act of 1971 as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2011) 13 SUPREME COURT CASES 446 (supra), the scope of the said Act of 1971 cannot be enlarged by invoking the inherent power of the Civil Court recognized under the provisions of Section 151 of the Code. 29. Moreover, the provisions of the said Act of 1971 do not authorise either the Estate Officer dealing with an eviction proceeding under Section 5 of the said Act of 1971 or the Court dealing with an appeal from an order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer under Section 9 thereof to pass an order requiring the public undertakings to take measures of the essential supply or service to the public premises, therefore, the said authorities being the creatures of the said Act of 1971 cannot exercise such power as has been held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2007 (3) CHN 476 (supra). The paragraph 12 of the said report being relevant is quoted below:- "12. At this juncture, it will be profitable to refer to the well-known proposition of law that a natural person has the capacity to do all lawful things unless his capacity has been curtailed by some rule of law. It is equally a fundamental principle that in case of a statutory corporation, it is just the other way. The Corporation has no power to do anything unless those power are conferred on it by the statutes, which creates it.(See: Manimuddin Bepari Vs. Chairman of The Municipal Commissioner, Dacca, reported in 40 CWN 17)" 30. The Three Judges Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 2011 CAL 64 (supra) relied on by Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the opposite party is of no help for his client inasmuch it is settled position of law that the unauthorised occupiers, encroachers and squatters of any premises are entitled to enjoy electricity so long they are not dispossessed by due process of law but the issue to be determined in the present revisional application is not the right of the opposite party to get the supply of electricity but to the competence of the Court to grant the said relief to the opposite party in aid of it's such right. 31. Summing up the discussion made above the issue involved in the present revisional application is decided in negative and inconsequence thereof the order impugned is set aside. C.O. 1833 of 2018 is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. In view of the amended provision of Section 9(4) of the said Act of 1971 the Second Court of learned Additional District Judge at Assansol, Dist. Paschim Burdwan is directed to dispose of the Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 2016 within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order positively without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
O R