Case: SAVATRAM RAMPRATAP MILL Vs. RADHEYSHYAM S/O LAXMINARAYAN GOENKAR (D) THR. LRS. AND ANR

2. Few facts need to be mentioned infra for disposal of the appeal, which involves a short question.  3. Thet was originally a privately owned Company situated at Akola (Maharashtra). It was engaged in the business of manufacture of cotton. This Mill was later taken over by the National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra) Ltd., which is a subsidiary of NTC-a Government of India Undertaking.  4. Since thet became the Government of India Undertaking, the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) became applicable to thes Mills.  5. On 25.06.1993 and 04.04.2003, the Estate Officer of theSections 4 and 7(3) of the Act tos predecessor, who was alleged to be in an unauthorized occupation of thes premises, and called upon him to vacate the premises specified in the notices. He was, however, asked to attend the proceedings, pursuant to the notices, at Mumbai.  6. Respondents predecessor felt aggrieved by the issuance of the notices, particularly, that part of the notices, which had directed him to attend the proceedings at Mumbai, and filed a writ petition in High Court of Bombay at Nagpur questioning the legality and validity of the notices.  7. The challenge to the notices was essentially on the ground that when the public premises in question is situated at Akola then the proceedings in relation to such public premises has to be held only at Akola rather than at Mumbai where no part of the cause of action had arisen.  8. In other words, the contention was that when admittedly the entire cause of action to initiate the proceedings under the Act had arisen at Akola within the local limits specified in notification issuedSection 3 where the public premises in question is situated, thes predecessor cannot be asked to attend the proceedings at Mumbai and the proceedings under the Act can only be validly initiated at Akola that being within the local limits specified in the notification issuedSection 3 of the Act.  9. The Single Judge of the High Court accepted the ground raised by the) and by his order dated 25.11.2003 allowed the writ petition, in consequence, quashed the impugned notices. It was held that thet would be free to initiate the proceedings under the Act in relation to public premises in question at Akola. Thet felt aggrieved and filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.  10. By impugned order, the Division Bench upheld the order passed by the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal, which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the

Reasoning: 11. Having heard the learnedl for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal finding no merit therein12. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench in the impugned order rightly upheld the view taken by the Single Judge calling for no interference in this appeal15. Construing the expression local limits within which occurring in Section 3(b) of the Act, the High Court held and, in our opinion, rightly that the Estate Officer has to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to the public premises falling in the local limits specified in the notification16. Since in this case, the notification (Annexure P-1), in clear terms, specified that the Mill is situated at Akola [see Item 5(15)], a fortiori, the proceedings in relation to such public premises under the Act could only be initiated at Akola-that being the area falling in the local limits specified in the notification for exercise of powers by the Estate Officer. The High Court was, therefore, right in interpreting Section 3(b) of the Act and, in consequence, was legally justified in quashing the notices impugned in the writ petition as being without jurisdiction17. Before parting, we consider it apposite to state that thet would be free to issue fresh notices to1 under the Act and initiate the proceedings for their eviction from the public premises at Akolas are dispossessed on the strength of any order passed by the Estate Officer, the possession will remain with the19. Let fresh notices be issued by thet within one month from the date of this order to1 or/and to any person(s), who claim(s) to be in possession in relation to specified public premises under the Act20. The proceedings be held at Akola-that being the proper place for deciding the proceedings under the Act, as specified in the notification issuedSection 3 referred supra21. The proceedings, once initiated, be completed expeditiously strictly in accordance with law.