M/S Crawford Bayley & Co. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors

The appellants also claimed a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent No. 2 (Estate Officer) from proceeding with Case No. 3 of 2002 initiated by him. The respondent No. 3, the State Bank of India owns a building in Fort, Mumbai. According to the appellants the management of the Imperial Bank which was the predecessor of respondent No.3 State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank ") leased out the premises to appellant No. 1 in 1943. The ground floor and the second floor of the said building is occupied by the respondent no. 3 Bank. The lease granted in favour of the appellants was renewed from time to time and it was last renewed till 1973. But after that same was not renewed. But by notice dated 6th January, 2000 respondent No.3 terminated the tenancy of the appellant No. 1 on the ground that it requires the premises to accommodate their Capital Market Branch, Personal Bank Branch and other branches. But subsequently on 17th April, 2002, the termination notice dated 6th January, 2000 was withdrawn. Thereafter, another notice dated 17th April, 2002 was given terminating the tenancy at the end of calendar month next to the calendar month in which the notice was received by the appellant no.1. Several reasons were given for termination of the tenancy. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice under sub-section (1) and clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, 1971 to the appellant No. 1 to show cause why the order of eviction should not be passed against them. This show cause notice issued by respondent No. 2 was challenged by filing present writ petition.

The second submission was that the provisions of Section 3 of the Public Premises Act are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it makes the Estate Officer of the statutory authority as a Judge in his own cause. Thirdly, it was submitted that the show cause notice is violative of the guildelines issued by the Central Government from time to time. Fourthly, it was submitted that the Government of India Allocation of Business Rules 1961 allots the powers of the Central Government to appoint Estate Officer under the provisions of the Act to the Ministry of Urban Development and not to the Ministry of Finance. Therefore, the order appointing the respondent No. 2 as Estate Officer was made by the Ministry of Finance and not by the Ministry of Urban Development. Therefore it is contrary to the rules of Allocation of Business. Fifthly and lastly it was submitted that the respondent No. 2 was appointed as an Estate Officer by order dated 24th June, 2002 which refers to the notification dated 29th July, 1988. It was submitted that the notification dated 29th July, 1988 had been superceded by the notification dated 25th January, 1993, therefore appointment is bad & without jurisdiction.

Leave was granted in these petitions & now finally appeals have come up for final disposal.

In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in these appeals/writ petitions hence, they are dismissed. The Estate Officer may now proceed and dispose of the matters expeditiously. No order as to costs.