Case: THE ESTATE OFFICER, EVICTION AUTHORITY, N.L.C. LTD., NEYVELI Vs. B. MANORANJITHAM

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 22.06.2006 passed by the High Court of Madras in CRP NPD No. 1469 of 2005.2. The broad facts of the case are that the appellant had granted a licence to run a tea stall to one Sampath Kumar some time in October 1995.3. It appears that soon after the grant of licence, Sampath Kumar sold the tea stall to the respondent in November, 1995. When the appellant became aware of the fact that some unauthorized person was running the tea stall, a notice was issued to Sampath Kumar and pursuant thereto the licence granted to him was cancelled by an order dated 13.08.2004. The cancellation of the licence granted to Sampath Kumar is not an issue before us.4. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent. In response to the show-cause notice, the respondent made submissions and that led to an order of eviction passed against him as an unauthorised occupant of the premises on 27.01.2005.5. Feeling aggrieved by the eviction order dated 27.01.2005, an appeal was filed by the respondent which came to be allowed by the District Judge on 29.06.2005. Against that order, the appellant preferred a writ petition which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.6. We may mention at this stage that during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant had come out with a scheme some time in July 2001 with respect to regularization of the licence granted to some of the traders. According to the respondent, an application was filed by the respondent as well as Sampath Kumar for regularization of the transfer/sale of the licence by Sampath Kumar in favour of the respondent.7. While that application was pending, the respondent was evicted from the tea stall pursuant to the order of eviction dated 27.01.2005. The physical eviction of the respondent took place some time in February / March 2005.8. The appellant, thereafter, issued a tender for the allotment of the tea stall and through a process of selection, the tea stall was allotted to one Mr. S. Manoharan and Mr. V. Selvaraj and possession was handed over to them on or about 10.04.2005. We are told that the two allottees are in possession of the tea stall since then.9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that there is an implied licence granted to the respondent particularly in view of the conduct of the appellant which has been taking the licence fee from the respondent during the period that the respondent was in occupation of the tea stall. It is further submitted that the application filed by the respondent as well as Mr. Sampath Kumar has not yet been decided by the appellant and therefore this is an additional factor which indicates that an implied licence has been granted to the respondent. Reference has been made to Section 54 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882.10. In our opinion, the respondent has not made any case in his favour. There is no dispute about the fact that the licence was given by the appellant to Mr. Sampath Kumar and the licence was a non-transferable licence. Under these circumstances, the respondent could not have been put in possession of the tea stall.11. Undoubtedly, the premises were Public Premises as defined under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and the respondent was an unauthorized occupant of the premises in terms of Section 2 (g) of the said Act.12. In so far as the present case is concerned, since eviction proceeding had been initiated against Sampath Kumar, it cannot be said that the respondent had an implied licence to continue in the premises. If that was so, the appellant would not have taken any steps for the eviction of Sampath Kumar nor would it have passed eviction order against Sampath Kumar.13. The appellant also by its conduct in having opened a tender of the tea stall and granting it to Mr. S. Manoharan and Mr. V. Selvaraj is a clear indication that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to grant a licence to the respondent either impliedly or expressly. All along the appellant had treated the respondent as an unauthorized occupant and therefore it cannot be said that any right accrued in favour of the respondent to continue in the premises in question.

Decision:
1[ds]We are told that the two allottees are in possession of the tea stall since then10. In our opinion, the respondent has not made any case in his favour. There is no dispute about the fact that the licence was given by the appellant to Mr. Sampath Kumar and the licence was a non-transferable licence. Under these circumstances, the respondent could not have been put in possession of the tea stall11. Undoubtedly, the premises were Public Premises as defined under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and the respondent was an unauthorized occupant of the premises in terms of Section 2 (g) of the said Act12. In so far as the present case is concerned, since eviction proceeding had been initiated against Sampath Kumar, it cannot be said that the respondent had an implied licence to continue in the premises. If that was so, the appellant would not have taken any steps for the eviction of Sampath Kumar nor would it have passed eviction order against Sampath Kumar13. The appellant also by its conduct in having opened a tender of the tea stall and granting it to Mr. S. Manoharan and Mr. V. Selvaraj is a clear indication that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to grant a licence to the respondent either impliedly or expressly. All along the appellant had treated the respondent as an unauthorized occupant and therefore it cannot be said that any right accrued in favour of the respondent to continue in the premises in question.